Challenging the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Challenging the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism

Atheists often make the argument there is no evidence for the existence of God. Personally, I think there is. However, for the purposes of this thread, I would like to take a different tack and put the atheist on the spot by asking him or her: "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Does the atheist really have sufficient evidence to maintain a purely materialistic worldview?"

Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote:What evidence does the

Quote:

What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality?

Actually, I have no evidence that it is, and no evidence that it's not. Thus, I cannot make an assertion in either direction. Without a justification or impetus to make the case one way or the other, then I must set aside the idea of reality beyond that with which I interact, while still accepting that it may eventually be found that such reality exists.

You already know, no doubt, that when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists. You cannot prove even that you are human, or any other information of external reality. We deal with the reality we perceive and interact with because we have no other choice, but all the time, there is no way to objectively prove that reality is the true one. All that you experience may be your own mind lying to you.  Given that, it becomes impossible to hold any active beliefs without being intellectually dishonest. Thus, it becomes impossible to assert a belief in the existence of the divine, and so anyone who rejects assumptions when forming their beliefs must then hold no active God-belief, ie: atheism.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Evidence is monist by

Evidence is monist by definition; the supernatural is not differentiable from the unknown, making any conclusions about it invalid, which is why science doesn't regard the supernatural at all. The scientific method can take a lot of little repeatable phenomena, and structure a hypothesis about how they may work; and all that may fit into a theory which can be tested in more elaborate ways, and used for practical things. You theists are working backward, trying to justify a non sequitur with random miscellaneous bullshit.

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:when you come

BMcD wrote:

when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists.

B-Mac you just found a sentient God.

 

To Paisley: Amusing line of questioning. Actually all decent theories of quantum gravity point to physicality being a property of the more fundamental geometry of motion, which all but states your case for you doesn't it.

FWIW, you and I have similar theistic views and I've been a member of the RRS forums for a while. In that time I've had mostly good experiences and I like and respect these guys and have gotten respect in return. Although the RRS is somewhat founded on the idea that a rational and philosophical God belief is not possible, they're always open to hear conviction from someone who has a viewpoint founded outside of blind faith or cult indoctrination. To the stated purpose of ridding the world of delusion most here hold an exception, of sorts, in the cases of pantheism, deism and such because there is a degree to which they are obviously rational worldviews.

The standard questions put to people of our theistic persuasion are-

What is the substantive difference between the universe God and just a universe.

What form of sentience and/or power, does the universe God possess? Elaborate on omniscience and omnipotence.

Anyhow, nice to meet you, I hope you'll stick around and give your answers as I'm interested in reading them. Smiling

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:[F]or the

Paisley wrote:
[F]or the purposes of this thread, I would like to take a different tack and put the atheist on the spot by asking him or her: "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Does the atheist really have sufficient evidence to maintain a purely materialistic worldview?"

This is such a weird question. Read it again, and consider that physical reality is the only reality we actually have evidence for. Your question then becomes, "What evidence does the atheist have that reality constitutes reality?"

ALL the evidence is physical. ALL of it from the natural world. Evidence for the supernatural is shaky at best, and basically nonexistent.

Paisley wrote:
Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

Try a lurking supernatural belief. That doesn't imply any specific creature of the supernatural, just a belief in the supernatural itself.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Actually, I have

BMcD wrote:
Actually, I have no evidence that it is, and no evidence that it's not. Thus, I cannot make an assertion in either direction. Without a justification or impetus to make the case one way or the other, then I must set aside the idea of reality beyond that with which I interact, while still accepting that it may eventually be found that such reality exists.

What you are saying is that your worldview does not permit you to take a metaphysical stance - rational or otherwise. As such, you bar yourself from participating in any metaphysical discussion. End of discussion.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:Evidence is

magilum wrote:
Evidence is monist by definition; the supernatural is not differentiable from the unknown, making any conclusions about it invalid, which is why science doesn't regard the supernatural at all. The scientific method can take a lot of little repeatable phenomena, and structure a hypothesis about how they may work; and all that may fit into a theory which can be tested in more elaborate ways, and used for practical things. You theists are working backward, trying to justify a non sequitur with random miscellaneous bullshit. 

In other words, you have no rational basis to support your worldview.  As such, you have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Actually, I have no evidence that it is, and no evidence that it's not. Thus, I cannot make an assertion in either direction. Without a justification or impetus to make the case one way or the other, then I must set aside the idea of reality beyond that with which I interact, while still accepting that it may eventually be found that such reality exists.

What you are saying is that your worldview does not permit you to take a metaphysical stance - rational or otherwise. As such, you bar yourself from participating in any metaphysical discussion. End of discussion.

If I understand pantheism/panentheism correctly (not saying I do), everything has metaphysical properties (all is god or all has god in it).

Doesn't that disqualify you from any materialist discussions as the only stance you can have is metaphysical?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Dray
Posts: 68
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hi Everybody!I'm relatively

Hi Everybody!

I'm relatively new here, but I was just curious if anyone can point me in the direction of where I can get the book on how to live my life according to the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism?

Thanks in advance!


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:In other

Paisley wrote:

In other words, you have no rational basis to support your worldview.  As such, you have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

No.  Your initial post asked for evidence of the materialistic worldview, not a rational justification.

As has already been stated, all evidence is materialistic in nature.  The rational basis is derived from this fact.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Atheists often

Paisley wrote:

Atheists often make the argument there is no evidence for the existence of God. Personally, I think there is. However, for the purposes of this thread, I would like to take a different tack and put the atheist on the spot by asking him or her: "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Does the atheist really have sufficient evidence to maintain a purely materialistic worldview?"

Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

Panentheism is probably the most "logical" tact to take if you wish to believe in a supernatural guiding force to the universe. It's certainly not entirely without merit.

Your question comes with a couple of undefined terms. What is "ultimate reality?" How is it distinguished from regular old middle-of-the-week-I-haven't-had-enough-coffee reality? And, what constitutes evidence? If you are building your panentheistic worldview on evidence, what evidence do you have that it is congruent with reality?

I'll try to answer the question I think you are asking.

I'll assume by "materialist" you mean "empiricist." I am that. I believe our knowledge of the universe (what you called Truth in another thread, with a capital 'T') can come from one source -- direct observation. We can draw conclusions from those observations, and communicate our experiences and observations with others, but ultimately, anything that is not directly observed is not Truth, it is merely suspicion.

(You might at this point argue that our sensation of the universe constitutes indirect, and not direct, observation. I'll gloss over this point for now, in the interest of relative brevity.)

So, we observe, and we reason about what we observe, and we draw conclusions, and these conclusions show us where to make our next observations. If the new observations were indicated by the conclusions, the conclusions are considered contingently trustworthy. (Contingent on further observation, of course.) If the observations are contraindicated by the conclusions, we go back and reason further about our observations, to draw new conclusions.

In all steps, observation is the key. Reason alone is not sufficient. Historically, reason alone is almost always incorrect. Reason alone is not self-correcting. Reason coupled to and bounded by observation is self-correcting. This is proven by the progress our society has made through the practice of science. There is no other epistemology that has given us consistently correct results. Science does that, and it does so consistently.

As we gain knowledge, we discover new areas of our own ignorance. It seems to be human nature to plaster the face of God (whether Christian, pantheistic, Hindu, panentheistic, or any other conception of a guiding force) across the blankness of the unknown, rather than exploring the unknown. This is usually the result of reasoning sans observation. In every case so far, God has fled before the inexorable tendrils of science. Every empty place on the map of knowledge, where we once had written, "Here be God," has been replaced with a detailed cartography of observation, reason, and progress.

So, that is why I believe that the evidence of the physical reality constitutes ultimate reality. Our conception of the fundamentals of the universe might change (such as with our current research in to quantum gravity, as has been mentioned), but that conception is additive, not destructive. We don't lose knowledge simply because we realize we don't know everything yet. So far, we've not found evidence of anything but the perfect and wondrous machinations of the universe.

But that's just me. If you are happy in your beliefs, and if they give you feelings of comfort and safety, then you are no worse off than I. I myself cannot find comfort there, as it seems to me merely a façade, a false hope, and false comfort. There seems to be no logical way, even with a panentheistic God, to determine the attributes of this God. So, to reason about this God without observation is to wander blindly across an infinite glass plane, with no markers or methods of determining the characteristics or desires or powers of God.

And that, to me, sounds hopeless and frustrating.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BMcD wrote:when

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists.

B-Mac you just found a sentient God.

Good point.

 

Eloise wrote:
To Paisley: Amusing line of questioning. Actually all decent theories of quantum gravity point to physicality being a property of the more fundamental geometry of motion, which all but states your case for you doesn't it.

Yes, the prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum theory does not support materialism. The question then becomes what is this "more fundamental geometry of motion" or ground of being.

Eloise wrote:
FWIW, you and I have similar theistic views and I've been a member of the RRS forums for a while. In that time I've had mostly good experiences and I like and respect these guys and have gotten respect in return. Although the RRS is somewhat founded on the idea that a rational and philosophical God belief is not possible, they're always open to hear conviction from someone who has a viewpoint founded outside of blind faith or cult indoctrination. To the stated purpose of ridding the world of delusion most here hold an exception, of sorts, in the cases of pantheism, deism and such because there is a degree to which they are obviously rational worldviews.

Okay. I hear you. I think it is important that theistic beliefs have some rational basis. However, I also recognize the limits of rationality in the pursuit of ultimate truth.  Therefore, faith has an equally important part to play.

Eloise wrote:
The standard questions put to people of our theistic persuasion are-

What is the substantive difference between the universe God and just a universe.

What form of sentience and/or power, does the universe God possess? Elaborate on omniscience and omnipotence.

Pantheism emphasizes only the immanent aspect of God while panentheism includes both the immanent and transcendent aspects. Panentheism may be seen as a synthesis of pantheism and classical theism. Pantheism is normally associated with idealism (ultimately, there is only one mind) while panentheism is normally associated with pansychism (there are many minds). So, pantheism is the view that there is ultimately only one mind while panentheism is the view that there are many minds but there is one mind that includes all other minds.

I think it is important to note that pantheism is not compatible with materialism. Pantheism typically sees the phenomenal world as illusory, much like a dream is seen as an illusion in the mind of a dreamer.

Eloise wrote:
 Any any rate, nice to meet you, I hope you'll stick around and give your answers as I'm interested in reading them. Smiling

Nice to meet you too.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If I

jcgadfly wrote:
If I understand pantheism/panentheism correctly (not saying I do), everything has metaphysical properties (all is god or all has god in it).

Doesn't that disqualify you from any materialist discussions as the only stance you can have is metaphysical?

No, because "materialism" (a.k.a. physcialism) is a metaphysical position.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:magilum

Paisley wrote:

magilum wrote:
Evidence is monist by definition; [...]

In other words, you have no rational basis to support your worldview.  As such, you have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

Haha - did you even read magilum's post? By "rational", what do you mean? "Tons of evidence" obviously doesn't qualify for you, so what would? A philisophical position?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Dray wrote:I'm relatively

Dray wrote:

I'm relatively new here, but I was just curious if anyone can point me in the direction of where I can get the book on how to live my life according to the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism?

Are you joking, Dray? The beauty of living the life is that you get to make your own decisions rather than living according to obscure messages in mythology. Why would you want just one book?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote:No.  Your

Fish wrote:
No.  Your initial post asked for evidence of the materialistic worldview, not a rational justification.

As has already been stated, all evidence is materialistic in nature.  The rational basis is derived from this fact.

This is not true. All evidence is not materialistic in nature.

materialism : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

The prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum theory does not support materialism.  Quantum indeterminacy says that there are physical events without physical causes.

Scientific materialism is somewhat of a misnomer. Materialism is the metaphysical view that matter or the physical constitutes ultimate reality. Science does not make metaphysical pronouncements. Science simply attempts to explain observed phenomena in terms of cause and effect normally expressed in the language of mathematics. It does not say that all observed phenomena can be explained in physical terms.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
The non-physical is

The non-physical is undetectable. (for if it was detectable I would group it in with the physical) Because the physical is the only thing that is detectable, it is the only thing that constitutes meaningful reality. Thus, the physical is ultimate reality for practical concerns. If there are any meaningless details to "ultimate reality", one must be agnostic to them.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Dray
Posts: 68
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Are you

HisWillness wrote:

Are you joking, Dray? The beauty of living the life is that you get to make your own decisions rather than living according to obscure messages in mythology. Why would you want just one book?

I don't know.  I've never lived my life according to a book before, but the OP seems to show a complete understanding of what it means to live life as an atheist.  I just assumed there must be some book of rules that he has read to get such a profound understanding of the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism... which all atheists share of course.  Perhaps I shouldnt assume.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:This is

HisWillness wrote:
This is such a weird question. Read it again, and consider that physical reality is the only reality we actually have evidence for. Your question then becomes, "What evidence does the atheist have that reality constitutes reality?"

No, you must first learn to dinstingusih between the terms "phenomena" and "reality." They are not necessarily the same. Phenomena is simply "appearances." Appearances can be deceiving or illusory. The question then becomes: "What is the ultimate nature ofl phenomena?" Is it physical, mental or some combination thereof?" This is what I mean by the term "ultimate reality." Materialism says that all phenomena is ultimately physical in nature (this includes mental phenomena as well).

HisWillness wrote:
The evidence is physical. ALL of it from the natural world. Evidence for the supernatural is shaky at best, and basically nonexistent.

I do not accept the notion that the "natural" and the "physical" are interchangeable terms. Metaphysical questions ask "What is the "ultimate nature" of the phenomenal world?" The belief that nature is ultimately physical is just that - a belief.

As I have demonstrated in previous posts, the prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum theory does not support materialism - the view that matter or the physical is fundamental.

HisWillness wrote:
Try a lurking supernatural belief. That doesn't imply any specific creature of the supernatural, just a belief in the supernatural itself.

This is why I have to set up some kind of parameters when engaging  atheists in a metaphysical discussion. Typically, an atheist wants to hide behind the notion that "atheism is simply a disbelief in God - it doesn't affirm anything." This is just an excuse to enable atheists to criticize the metaphysical views of others without subjecting their own views to the same scrutiny. I will not permit the atheist to have this luxury. If an atheist wants to have a fair metaphysical debate then I demand that he states his metaphysical position.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote:The non-physical

qbg wrote:
The non-physical is undetectable. (for if it was detectable I would group it in with the physical) Because the physical is the only thing that is detectable, it is the only thing that constitutes meaningful reality. Thus, the physical is ultimate reality for practical concerns. If there are any meaningless details to "ultimate reality", one must be agnostic to them.

I would argue that our common sense notion or intuition is that conscious-awareness is nonphysical. To date, there is no scientific means to detect subjective experiences. However, it is absurd to think that subjective experiences do not exist and that they are not meaningful since all meaning depends on their very existence.

Also, I would argue that quantum events qualify as evidence for the exhibition of nonphysical causes. And knowing that all so-called physical phenomena reduces to quantum events, this is no trivial matter.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote: Also, I

Paisley wrote:
Also, I would argue that quantum events qualify as evidence for the exhibition of nonphysical causes. And knowing that all so-called physical phenomena reduces to quantum events, this is no trivial matter.

What evidence of quantum events are nonphysical?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
If I understand pantheism/panentheism correctly (not saying I do), everything has metaphysical properties (all is god or all has god in it).

Doesn't that disqualify you from any materialist discussions as the only stance you can have is metaphysical?

No, because "materialism" (a.k.a. physcialism) is a metaphysical position.

 

 

OK - I freely admit that my philosophy training is a distant memory. That's why I study theatre/drama but...

How can the physical be outside the physical? Or how can the concrete also be abstract?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Fish

Paisley wrote:

Fish wrote:
No.  Your initial post asked for evidence of the materialistic worldview, not a rational justification.

As has already been stated, all evidence is materialistic in nature.  The rational basis is derived from this fact.

This is not true. All evidence is not materialistic in nature.

materialism : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

The prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum theory does not support materialism.  Quantum indeterminacy says that there are physical events without physical causes.

Scientific materialism is somewhat of a misnomer. Materialism is the metaphysical view that matter or the physical constitutes ultimate reality. Science does not make metaphysical pronouncements. Science simply attempts to explain observed phenomena in terms of cause and effect normally expressed in the language of mathematics. It does not say that all observed phenomena can be explained in physical terms.

Perhaps we could use the the term "scientific naturalism," then, since you don't like the term "scientific materialism." Then, we can say that all observed phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms.

There's also evidence to support that quantum theory is incorrect, or at least, vastly incomplete. After several decades, we still have dozens of theories attempting to explain the fundamentals of quantum field theory. Quantum gravity is a mess. String theory, which seems to be the prevailing view, is as yet unprovable. (CERN may be able to correct that with the large hadron collider, so that might change in the next couple of years.) Even with that, the fundamental of matter hardly destroys the concept of natural materialism. As we learn what matter really is, we gain knowledge about what constitutes matter. We don't lose the concept of matter. Understanding a brick does not negate the house.

Also, there are competing hypothesis to quantum theory (such as field structure theory) that may merit attention. (Although it seems that FST is really just a bunch of determinists who don't like the uncertainty principle. However, their approach is intriguing, in that it's simple, where quantum theory has only increased in complexity, a sign that it is potentially incorrect.)  I wouldn't throw the physical baby out with the metaphysical bathwater just yet.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
In Quantum theory, things

In Quantum theory, things may be undeterminalistic, due to uncertainty principles involved between  non-commutable operators (most known is momentum and position.).

 

However, not to say QM is wrong, as it's been proven to be the most usefull solution, now all we have to do is to unify it with relativity. Either through String Theory of Loop Gravity or of the many other theories attempting to claim fame.

 

While, QM, may seem overwhelming, many have been convinced. Even Einstein shed doubt, but was later proved wrong.

 

Which is the quote in my sig. "You're not thinking, you're merely being logical", Bohr said that to Einstein after he remarked "So the moon exists because a mouse is present to observe it?" Sure QM seems fucked, but it's the best we can do for now.

 

 

QM is still materialistic, it's just not determinate. 'Quantum' refers to 'Quanta' which of course is are material entities.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:This is why I

Paisley wrote:

This is why I have to set up some kind of parameters when engaging  atheists in a metaphysical discussion. Typically, an atheist wants to hide behind the notion that "atheism is simply a disbelief in God - it doesn't affirm anything." This is just an excuse to enable atheists to criticize the metaphysical views of others without subjecting their own views to the same scrutiny. I will not permit the atheist to have this luxury. If an atheist wants to have a fair metaphysical debate then I demand that he states his metaphysical position.

Here's a simple summary of my metaphysical beliefs:

Any belief system must be congruent with observed reality. Any belief in a deity, or a supreme being, or a panentheistic guiding force, is based not on observation, but on a desire to hold beliefs that are orthogonal to observable reality. It is based on emotion, and on reasoning alone, without observation. As I stated before, that dog won't hunt.

Further, belief in God does not lead to a cohesive, coherent view of the universe. The assumption of God is an unnecessary duality, where every phenomena must be interpreted in two ways -- naturalistically, and in light of God's involvement. This adds complexity and uncertainty. I'll have my friend Okham take up the rest of that argument.

Now. Please note I said belief in God is orthogonal to observable reality. I am not agnostic, but I'm certainly not going to attack your presumably-rational views of divinity. (Irrational views, though, are fair game.)

Finally: if you want to use quantum theory to topple materialism, be careful: quantum theory supports pantheism much more strongly than panentheism.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BMcD

Paisley wrote:

BMcD wrote:
Actually, I have no evidence that it is, and no evidence that it's not. Thus, I cannot make an assertion in either direction. Without a justification or impetus to make the case one way or the other, then I must set aside the idea of reality beyond that with which I interact, while still accepting that it may eventually be found that such reality exists.

What you are saying is that your worldview does not permit you to take a metaphysical stance - rational or otherwise. As such, you bar yourself from participating in any metaphysical discussion. End of discussion.

No, what I'm saying is that my worldview neither endorses, nor explicitly rules out any stance whatsoever. You, on the other hand, seem to be going to great lengths to disqualify from the discussion any position you cannot refute.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BMcD wrote:when

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists.

B-Mac you just found a sentient God.

Only if I claim to be God. I don't. I claim no absolute knowledge of my own nature, any more than I claim absolute knowledge of what happens after I die.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Atheists often

Paisley wrote:

Atheists often make the argument there is no evidence for the existence of God. Personally, I think there is. However, for the purposes of this thread, I would like to take a different tack and put the atheist on the spot by asking him or her: "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Does the atheist really have sufficient evidence to maintain a purely materialistic worldview?"

Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

Ahh, a non trolling thread.  Good to see, you have redeemed yourself quite nicely.

There is no evidence that the physical constitutes ultimate reality, just as there is no evidence there is anything other than the physical.  There may well be, but until such a point that evidence is found, what is the point in giving anything beyond the physical any credence?  Without evidence it is nothing more than imagination run wild or random guesses, not even educated guesses.  The most logical way to go about anything is to work with what you have rather than what you wish you had or can dream of having.

Paisley wrote:
In other words, you have no rational basis to support your worldview.  As such, you have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

One can either use their intellect to assemble the evidence and see where it leads, or one can use their creative imagination to form a conclusion and use their intellect to make the pieces fit.  Anything beyond the physical is just creative imagination as it is not possible to have evidence of.  From that point on you're working in reverse.  It is those who believe in the metaphysical who are irrational as they have nothing but their imaginations to back up their claims.  They make their conclusions and then look for anything they can claim to be evidence to fit.  They are the ones if anyone who have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

Paisley wrote:
What you are saying is that your worldview does not permit you to take a metaphysical stance - rational or otherwise. As such, you bar yourself from participating in any metaphysical discussion. End of discussion.

There is no rational stance.  You can follow logic and philosophy, but both of those require assumed starting points.  Without that logic or philosophy alone cannot prove anything.  In the case of metaphysical discussions the logic and philosophy is always based on unproven and (arguably) false assumptions and without covering off those assumptions with evidence and proof the entire argument is null and void.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Dray wrote:I don't know. 

Dray wrote:
I don't know.  I've never lived my life according to a book before, but the OP seems to show a complete understanding of what it means to live life as an atheist.

And yet subsequent posts show the the original poster has little idea of what it means. It's certainly not as bad as Paisley would have you believe. It's sort of like being a regular person who doesn't believe in ghosts. There's not much to it.

Dray wrote:
I just assumed there must be some book of rules that he has read to get such a profound understanding of the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism... which all atheists share of course.

No, but it's a fun idea. I thought you were poking fun, which is fine, since the book would be called "How To Think For Yourself"

Now that's funny. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Eloise wrote:BMcD

BMcD wrote:

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists.

B-Mac you just found a sentient God.

Only if I claim to be God. I don't. I claim no absolute knowledge of my own nature, any more than I claim absolute knowledge of what happens after I die.

No it's actually more simple than that, if solipsism then all evidence points to self as the creator of everything and everything itself aka God. As to what you know and do not know, you know you have an unconscious and subconscious portion of mind, yes? and you know you are not generally aware of the details but you know it contains structured information, yes? Therefore there are things you do not know that you know, therefore you do not know that you do not know what happens after you die, that may be one of the things which you do not know that you know.

I love a solipsistic roller coaster.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote:What evidence of

Fish wrote:
What evidence of quantum events are nonphysical?

Quantum events are events without a physical cause.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:BMcD

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists.

B-Mac you just found a sentient God.

Only if I claim to be God. I don't. I claim no absolute knowledge of my own nature, any more than I claim absolute knowledge of what happens after I die.

No it's actually more simple than that, if solipsism then all evidence points to self as the creator of everything and everything itself aka God. As to what you know and do not know, you know you have an unconscious and subconscious portion of mind, yes? and you know you are not generally aware of the details but you know it contains structured information, yes? Therefore there are things you do not know that you know, therefore you do not know that you do not know what happens after you die, that may be one of the things which you do not know that you know.

I love a solipsistic roller coaster.

But it's not solopsism. I'm not claiming that I'm the source of the information my mind is feeding me. I don't know. Unconscious and subconscious? I don't know. Those, two, could be data being fed into my conscious mind from an external source. The only thing I can claim to know is that I exist in some form. Any apparent data regarding the properties or qualities of that existance can all be falsehoods.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Eloise wrote:BMcD

BMcD wrote:

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

Eloise wrote:

BMcD wrote:

when you come down to it, you cannot prove anything beyond yourself exists.

B-Mac you just found a sentient God.

Only if I claim to be God. I don't. I claim no absolute knowledge of my own nature, any more than I claim absolute knowledge of what happens after I die.

No it's actually more simple than that, if solipsism then all evidence points to self as the creator of everything and everything itself aka God. As to what you know and do not know, you know you have an unconscious and subconscious portion of mind, yes? and you know you are not generally aware of the details but you know it contains structured information, yes? Therefore there are things you do not know that you know, therefore you do not know that you do not know what happens after you die, that may be one of the things which you do not know that you know.

I love a solipsistic roller coaster.

But it's not solopsism. I'm not claiming that I'm the source of the information my mind is feeding me.

No, only that one cannot prove to themselves that any external source exists. If you can't believe anything you can't prove then the rational conclusion is solipsism, right?

BTW don't take this too seriously, my intentions in starting this were lighthearted but it seems to be getting a little heated here.

Quote:

I don't know. Unconscious and subconscious? I don't know. Those, two, could be data being fed into my conscious mind from an external source. The only thing I can claim to know is that I exist in some form. Any apparent data regarding the properties or qualities of that existance can all be falsehoods.

Lies are creations too. Sticking out tongue The thing is that by the first quoted statement you have identified only one possible creator for anything, lie or truths or whatever, and it is sentient.

As there is only one possible source of which one can assume to have evidence or vice versa there is no evidence of any other possible source, any alternative to solipsism not ultimately believable through evidence.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Atheists often

Paisley wrote:

Atheists often make the argument there is no evidence for the existence of God. Personally, I think there is. However, for the purposes of this thread, I would like to take a different tack and put the atheist on the spot by asking him or her: "What evidence does the atheist have that the physical constitutes ultimate reality? Does the atheist really have sufficient evidence to maintain a purely materialistic worldview?"

Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

Ah, yet ANOTHER addition to the lonnnng list of "Burden of Proof Shift" smoke screens.

Honestly, how many different ways can theists say:

*Smug ON*

"Well answer me this Mr./Ms. Atheist: Where's your proof that [insert deity or cleverly disguised concept that ultimately reduces to said deity...see the OP] DOESN'T exist?  Huh?  Checkmate, godless scum!"

*Smug OFF*

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Fish

Paisley wrote:

Fish wrote:
What evidence of quantum events are nonphysical?

Quantum events are events without a physical cause.

Without am apparent deterministic cause. The basic sub-stratum of reality seems to be a background of the purest random unstructured energy, which can never fall to totally zero, which would correspond to true 'nothingness'.

The problem here is a semantic one of equating, or at least conflating, 'non-physical' to 'non-material' blurring into 'non-natural', or 'supernatural', leading with no justification whatever to some variation of the God hypothesis.

The Theistically inclined often appear to me to be in some ways more 'materialist' than naturalist non-theists, in that they seem to need to think that any word referring to something not actually composed of matter refers instead to something that is constituted of some supernatural 'stuff'. Related to whatever constituted the ideal geometric figures and other conceptual 'things'.

IOW, ideas and 'souls' and 'essences' and ultimate 'principles' and causes, are actually things, just made of a supernatural 'stuff'.

In the view of most scientifically inclined people capable of some subtlety of thought, as I like to think of myself, nature is composed of matter/energy, PLUS pattern, structure, process, etc., which are purely abstract concepts, in one sense, ie you can't pick up and feel a process in the same way you can a tea-cup. They are attributes of particular collections of inter-related, interacting matter and energy. A pattern or structure may be static in itself, yet direct the flows of other matter and/or energy, like a radio antenna directing electromagnetic radiation. A process is a pattern with structure in the time dimension.

Pattern, structure, process, etc are not 'material' things in the reductionist sense the OP seems to be using it, but are intimately part of a complete account of nature. They can be observed and described, some we can manipulate or even initiate.

It is an ignorant straw-man argument to insist that a 'materialist', in some tired metaphysical definition of the term, cannot account for these aspects of reality. It is metaphysics which is mired in ancient misconceptions and missing modern insights from the true study of reality, including the nature of mind and consciousness, namely Science.

It is also a crudely false dichotomy to present the only options as Materialism or God.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Your

nigelTheBold wrote:
Your question comes with a couple of undefined terms. What is "ultimate reality?" How is it distinguished from regular old middle-of-the-week-I-haven't-had-enough-coffee reality? And, what constitutes evidence? If you are building your panentheistic worldview on evidence, what evidence do you have that it is congruent with reality?

Ultimate reality is the underlying reality that accounts for the phenomenal world of appearances. And it is important that subjective experiences be factor into the equation because without an observer there are no observations. Thus the question is: What is the nature of this underlying reality and is it physical, mental or some combination thereof?

nigelTheBold wrote:
So, that is why I believe that the evidence of the physical reality constitutes ultimate reality. Our conception of the fundamentals of the universe might change (such as with our current research in to quantum gravity, as has been mentioned), but that conception is additive, not destructive. We don't lose knowledge simply because we realize we don't know everything yet. So far, we've not found evidence of anything but the perfect and wondrous machinations of the universe.

Materialists have a mechanical view of the world and tend to use terms like "machinations." A mechanical worldview is one in which ultimate reality is seen as a mindless, souless machine. However, the present scientific evidence does not bear this out. According to quantum theory, the world is fundamentally indeterminate, not a predictable, deterministic machine.

nigelTheBold wrote:
But that's just me. If you are happy in your beliefs, and if they give you feelings of comfort and safety, then you are no worse off than I. I myself cannot find comfort there, as it seems to me merely a façade, a false hope, and false comfort. There seems to be no logical way, even with a panentheistic God, to determine the attributes of this God. So, to reason about this God without observation is to wander blindly across an infinite glass plane, with no markers or methods of determining the characteristics or desires or powers of God.

And that, to me, sounds hopeless and frustrating.

My theology is not based on pure metaphysical speculation. At the heart of it is an element of "empiricism" based on contemplative practice.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
So, that is why I believe that the evidence of the physical reality constitutes ultimate reality. Our conception of the fundamentals of the universe might change (such as with our current research in to quantum gravity, as has been mentioned), but that conception is additive, not destructive. We don't lose knowledge simply because we realize we don't know everything yet. So far, we've not found evidence of anything but the perfect and wondrous machinations of the universe.

Materialists have a mechanical view of the world and tend to use terms like "machinations." A mechanical worldview is one in which ultimate reality is seen as a mindless, souless machine. However, the present scientific evidence does not bear this out. According to quantum theory, the world is fundamentally indeterminate, not a predictable, deterministic machine.

I left that word in purposefully. I do know the non-deterministic nature of quantum theory. A machine may also be non-deterministic. That's the whole point of Schrödinger's box -- it's a non-deterministic machine, based on quantum uncertainty. There's no evidence the universe is anything other than a large, non-deterministic machine. At its heart, all matter may be standing waves of energy. But that still doesn't require anything other than that which is contained in the universe.

The best argument for pantheism I've ever heard (not panentheism, unfortunately) is that the universe is quite likely one vast quantum computer, continuously calculating itself. That conception encompasses quantum theory, but also results in the universe-as-machine.

nigelTheBold wrote:
But that's just me. If you are happy in your beliefs, and if they give you feelings of comfort and safety, then you are no worse off than I. I myself cannot find comfort there, as it seems to me merely a façade, a false hope, and false comfort. There seems to be no logical way, even with a panentheistic God, to determine the attributes of this God. So, to reason about this God without observation is to wander blindly across an infinite glass plane, with no markers or methods of determining the characteristics or desires or powers of God.

And that, to me, sounds hopeless and frustrating.

Paisley wrote:

My theology is not based on pure metaphysical speculation. At the heart of it is an element of "empiricism" based on contemplative practice.

That sounds like a contradiction. There is no empiricism without observation. Contemplation without observation has a history of arriving at completely logical, and completely wrong, conclusions.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:the

nigelTheBold wrote:

the universe is quite likely one vast quantum computer, continuously calculating itself. That conception encompasses quantum theory, but also results in the universe-as-machine.

 

Preciously. Matter doesn't just exchange energy, it exchanges information.

 

As for Quantum events happening without a cause? WTF?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Without am

BobSpence1 wrote:
Without am apparent deterministic cause. The basic sub-stratum of reality seems to be a background of the purest random unstructured energy, which can never fall to totally zero, which would correspond to true 'nothingness'.

The problem here is a semantic one of equating, or at least conflating, 'non-physical' to 'non-material' blurring into 'non-natural', or 'supernatural', leading with no justification whatever to some variation of the God hypothesis.

If it is a nonphysical cause, then guess what...it isn't physical. This begs the question: Why call yourself a physicalist if you believe in nonphysical causes? If it is fundamentally indeterminate, then it doesn't have a cause and therefore without explanation. Either way you have problems.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Fish

Paisley wrote:

Fish wrote:
What evidence of quantum events are nonphysical?

Quantum events are events without a physical cause.

You've already said that.  So where is the nonphysical evidence of quantum events? 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:The best

nigelTheBold wrote:
The best argument for pantheism I've ever heard (not panentheism, unfortunately) is that the universe is quite likely one vast quantum computer, continuously calculating itself. That conception encompasses quantum theory, but also results in the universe-as-machine.

No, if it is conscious (and it would have to be to qualify as pantheism), then it qualifies as a quantum mind (not machine) exercising free will (selecting different possibilities amongst an infinity of quantum states).

nigelTheBold wrote:
That sounds like a contradiction. There is no empiricism without observation. Contemplation without observation has a history of arriving at completely logical, and completely wrong, conclusions.

Contemplative practice is the practice of meditation or mysticism.

empricism : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

mysticism : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight) (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:magilum

Paisley wrote:

magilum wrote:
Evidence is monist by definition; the supernatural is not differentiable from the unknown, making any conclusions about it invalid, which is why science doesn't regard the supernatural at all. The scientific method can take a lot of little repeatable phenomena, and structure a hypothesis about how they may work; and all that may fit into a theory which can be tested in more elaborate ways, and used for practical things. You theists are working backward, trying to justify a non sequitur with random miscellaneous bullshit. 

In other words, you have no rational basis to support your worldview.  As such, you have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

I don't see an argument in there.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Fish wrote:You've already

Fish wrote:
You've already said that.  So where is the nonphysical evidence of quantum events?

They do not have a physical cause. If they do not have a physical cause, then materialism is invalidated.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:I don't see an

magilum wrote:
I don't see an argument in there.

I didn't see one here either.

magilum wrote:
You theists are working backward, trying to justify a non sequitur with random miscellaneous bullshit. 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:No, you must

Paisley wrote:
No, you must first learn to dinstingusih between the terms "phenomena" and "reality." They are not necessarily the same. Phenomena is simply "appearances." Appearances can be deceiving or illusory. The question then becomes: "What is the ultimate nature ofl phenomena?" Is it physical, mental or some combination thereof?" This is what I mean by the term "ultimate reality." Materialism says that all phenomena is ultimately physical in nature (this includes mental phenomena as well).

It's physical. When you think about music, a different part of your brain is working than if you're thinking about accounting. Lots of evidence points to physical thoughts. If you have evidence of a non-physical ... anything, just let me know.

Paisley wrote:
I do not accept the notion that the "natural" and the "physical" are interchangeable terms.

Okay, so should I say "non-physical" instead of "supernatural"? Would that make you feel more comfortable?

Paisley wrote:
Metaphysical questions ask "What is the "ultimate nature" of the phenomenal world?" The belief that nature is ultimately physical is just that - a belief.

Yeah, it's a belief. It's a belief based on tons of physical evidence. Physical evidence is still the only kind you can get. Metaphysical questions can ask all they want.

Paisley wrote:
As I have demonstrated in previous posts, the prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum theory does not support materialism - the view that matter or the physical is fundamental.

What? Quantum theory attempts to describe the interactions that make up matter. What else does it describe, magic? Fairy dust?

Paisley wrote:
This is why I have to set up some kind of parameters when engaging  atheists in a metaphysical discussion. Typically, an atheist wants to hide behind the notion that "atheism is simply a disbelief in God - it doesn't affirm anything." This is just an excuse to enable atheists to criticize the metaphysical views of others without subjecting their own views to the same scrutiny. I will not permit the atheist to have this luxury. If an atheist wants to have a fair metaphysical debate then I demand that he states his metaphysical position.

A "fair metaphysical debate"? That seems a bit aetherial to me. Set up any parameters you like - I'm still having difficulty understanding your position. If you want to criticize my materialism, I'm okay with that, but don't bring a prejudice to the conversation and assume that it applies. My position is firmly positivist - no equivocation here.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:BobSpence1

Paisley wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Without am apparent deterministic cause. The basic sub-stratum of reality seems to be a background of the purest random unstructured energy, which can never fall to totally zero, which would correspond to true 'nothingness'.

The problem here is a semantic one of equating, or at least conflating, 'non-physical' to 'non-material' blurring into 'non-natural', or 'supernatural', leading with no justification whatever to some variation of the God hypothesis.

If it is a nonphysical cause, then guess what...it isn't physical. This begs the question: Why call yourself a physicalist if you believe in nonphysical causes? If it is fundamentally indeterminate, then it doesn't have a cause and therefore without explanation. Either way you have problems.

I did not say that quantum events have a non-physical cause, at all. I said there 'without an apparent deterministic cause'. I do not call myself a 'physicalist', the only label I thought might apply to me was 'naturalistic'.

I also ventured a suggested physical explanation, or at least a context, for this essential random, non-deterministic, aspect of quantum events. It should be pointed out that although quantum events, such as the decay of an individual unstable atoms or particles is unpredictable, when observed over a collection of such events, the probability of decay within any given time period is extremely consistent, the basis of things like radiometric dating techniques.

There is still nothing here requiring an explanation in terms of anything beyond the realm of matter/energy and their interactions. My point remains that a precise level of pure randomness, combined with a consistent pattern of interactions, describable mathematically to successively better levels of approximation, appears to be all we need to address what we observe at the quantum level. I repeat, I am not referring to anything beyond the natural, just not restricted to the 'mechanical' and physically touchable stuff of everyday experience.

In the context of a notional seething level of random energy at the minimum possible level, then we can imagine that the proximate 'cause' of an individual quantum event is this background 'noise' kicking the particle or atom in the critical energy range in the critical direction to trigger the decay event. Unstable atoms or particles are those in a higher energy state, but blocked from decaying to a lower, more stable state by the need to temporarily get to a higher energy to get  past some local effect. Its as though some billiard balls were in some shallow depression at the summit of a hill, and just needed a nudge to get them past the rim of the depression. The deeper the depression, the greater the kick needed to push them over the edge, large peaks of random energy are statistically less likely, therefore on average we have to wait longer before we get a big enough bump to kick them over the edge. This is the sort of behaviour we observe in decay events.

Not that we have everything explained, by any means, but we see nothing about the apparently non-deterministic aspects of  nature that remotely point to anything beyond utter randomness, especially at the sub-atomic level, augmented by the chaotic, unpredictable behaviour displayed by even highly deterministic systems under non-linear feed-back conditions (the 'Butterfly Effect') at the macro level.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:magilum

Paisley wrote:

magilum wrote:
I don't see an argument in there.

I didn't see one here either.

magilum wrote:
You theists are working backward, trying to justify a non sequitur with random miscellaneous bullshit. 

Not presenting substance seems consistent with your position, so at least you're free of hypocrisy.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I do not

BobSpence1 wrote:
I do not call myself a 'physicalist', the only label I thought might apply to me was 'naturalistic'.

 

Damn strait. It seems to me that Paisley is trying to use terms he/she hasn't defined (like physical) to try to "strawman" us into a certain position. I consider myself a 'naturalist' too. By that I mean all that exists is the universe and it's contents. (Of course this is modulo there being a meta-universe. If that's the case all that exists is the meta-universe and its contents.) So I'm a universist, as it were. So, not everything that is is material (i.e. matter&energy)? No shit. I don't think all matter&energy=universe. This stance, the "naturalist" or "universist" stance, is not consistent with any god that religions, such as Christianity, tend to promote, for those gods are often something other than the universe. I don't even understand the first thing really about quantum mechanics, but that's simply a feature of the universe (that is if QM is even remotely close to being correct). Also, minds are not something different altogether, i.e. other than the universe. They are just matter/energy, processes, and other features of the universe.

To be frank, I don't know what you're really arguing, Paisley. Are you trying to say there's something outside the universe (or meta-universe), e.g. a "mind"?


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Note: I

Paisley wrote:

Note: I realize that some atheists may object to idea that atheism implies materialism. If you are such an atheist, you need not apply. Clearly, you have a lurking God-belief.

 

I'm not going to talk about the dog-belief except to say it's a waste of time talking to someone who is delusional enough to believe in fairy tales.  What I want to ask is where the hell do you people get these supposed facts regarding atheists.  Most of the atheists I know are no more materialistic than a xtian.  In fact most of the xtians I know are self conscious consumers driving their BMW's and Benz's posing for anyone who looks. I deliver mail to a gated community with more than 700 customers.  The majority are xtian and the houses many of them have are in excess of 1M dollars.  Approximately 30 are preachers and most (27) of them are of the fundy type.  Quite a few of them are the laziest people I know, passing their mail box at least twice daily but not stopping to pick it up for two weeks and then complaining when I remove the mail back to the post office. 

Before you go there, I do not have a problem with rich people, I have a problem with smug xtian assholes, the least tolerant in our society.  Now mind you I do know genuinely nice theists.  They are not smug, in fact they are quite warm and friendly and do not judge others by their beliefs and do things for others, albeit so they can get into heaven.

As for atheists being materialistic I'll use myself.  I make good money but I opted to buy a 30yr old mobile home instead of a 2100 sq ft house (or larger), though I do own the land if you want ot call that materialistic.  I have a 5yr old van that I use for work and a 15yr old car I use for errands.  I do my own landscaping and yardwork as opposed to hiring gardeners as my customers do.  I don't have a lot of fancy furniture, gold, jewelry, toys, etc.   My one vice is that I love to cook and eat (picture Dom DeLuise sp). I do admit, however, that I bought a 20 piece set of pans for just over $400 about 8 yrs ago that I still use and they are in excellent shape.

Most atheists I know are similar in their materialism to me.  I will admit that there are likely to be found a sizeable number of atheists who are materialistic.  What's doubtful is that the percentage of materialistic atheists among their population would be larger than xtians.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower. 

Now, if I'm materialistic then I guess all those fundies on my route got a reservation on the express elevator to hell.  What really pisses me off is you people make this claim all the time.  I'm calling you on it.  Show me the statistics or studies that prove this claim or are you simply parroting some mindless drivel you heard somewhere spoken by some ignorant fundy preacher.  We are no more materialistic than xtians.

As far as the "lurking god-belief; I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR FUCKING gOD OR ANYONE'S FUCKING gOD, THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR FUCKING gOD OR ANY FUCKING dOG FOR THAT MATTER!! CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?  I'M AN ATHEIST, dOGDAMN IT!  It's not a religion, we don't believe in anything, we simply don't believe.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The notion that QM is

The notion that QM is somehow 'immaterial', or 'non-physical' is absurd.

 

What QM is is 'undeterminate'. That is we can only work in probabilities, in QM.

 

This is shown in the Time independent Schordiegner equation.

 

HY=EY

 

where H is the Hamiltonian H=p2/2m +V(x)

 

The solution to this (depending on the potential.) is called the wave function (Y.)

 

Using this, we can determine the probabilities. (expectation values..)

 

<x>=Integral (xY*Ydx) 

 

<p>=Integral(Y*pYdx)

 

where Y* is the complex conjugate of Y.

 

All the wavefunction indicates is uncertainty (the uncertainty principle between two non-commutable operators...)

 

OxOp>/(h-bar/2.)

where Ox is the standard deviation of x and Op is that of momentum.

 

There is nothing 'immaterial' about any of this.

 

The wave function Y has been confirmed experimentally

 

 

 

 

Electron diffraction pattern.  If it didn't have a 'physical cause', then why can we manipulate it?

 

 

 

So tell me, if QM events are 'non-physical' or 'immaterial', then how can we predict them? How can we assign probabilites to them?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:The

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The notion that QM is somehow 'immaterial', or 'non-physical' is absurd.

 

For the record Cpt I was referring to spin networks and string resonances, as distinct from QM. LQG and Strings are theories of quantum gravity. Both converge on the same description of physicality as a property of, ironically, what are in material terms, just abstract concepts; eg geometry.

Quote:

What QM is is 'undeterminate'. That is we can only work in probabilities, in QM.

 

QM defies Newtonian mechanics by being indeterminate. In simplest terms the uncertainty principle makes short work of the idea of making universal physical predictions from a handful of distinct information. In general material monists will by default presuppose that QM fits a Newtonian universe, this isn't really anyones fault either, this theory is never what a person being introduced to it expects it to be. QM, in reality, looks not even remotely like what we think the world is.  

 

 

Quote:

All the wavefunction indicates is uncertainty (the uncertainty principle between two non-commutable operators...)

 

Non-commutativity is not just a mathematical law, it says something about the universe it is applied to.  Momentum is directional, it should commute with position, it just makes common sense from a physicalist point of view. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com