• 3017amen
    3.1k
    …I feel sorry for Atheists. Not to sound disparaging, but I really do. Here in America, positive Atheism [a loose form of religious belief system] is in the so-called minority, and for a reason(?). As such, here in the US we have religious freedom that provides for that expression, any expression, even extremism. And in simple terms, our history indicates such values of freedom whereby we escaped religious persecution, and in many ways are still considered a refuge from the following notion of extremism which by itself, certainly continues to be a concern here and throughout the world; 911 was largely based on religious extremism.

    So in that little synoptic view, what we have existing is, Atheism on one side, and then on the other side we have extreme Fundamentalism (literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, dogmatic precepts that of course can lead to violence, and so forth) which has contributed to the problem that I’ll briefly address. And so my ‘cursory thoughts’ are, at best Atheism is just another religion; at worse it’s just Nihilism.

    Einstein said:

    “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres.” (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

    Before getting to my questions, and to support my view that Atheism is untenable, here’s the brief definition of Evolution/Darwinism:

    Descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations. In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.

    Pushing back, here are some existential phenomena/higher-consciousness that exist for human beings:
    1. Mathematical abstracts
    2. Musical genius
    3. Sense of wonderment
    4. Sense of purpose/Love
    5. Cosmological questions (all events must have a cause)
    6. NDE’s (near death experiences)
    7. Consciousness: human sentience/experience v. pure reason (loosely, a posteriori v. a priori)

    (Those are just a few concepts that in my view largely separate us from lower life forms.) But they [in our conscious existence] also can present unresolved paradox (propositions about self-consciousness/self-reference) that exists in life (also see Gödel's incompleteness theory).

    So Let me start with number 1. Mathematical abstracts. Why do we have two ways or this dual capacity for knowing the world? Consider falling objects, we avoid them through our cognitive/perceptive abilities. One does not calculate the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects to survive in the jungle do they? What survival value does math hold? In Darwinism, there is no reason to believe that the second method springs from a refinement of the first. The former does have a biological need, the latter has no biological significance at all.

    I will demonstrate through those seven aforementioned phenomena (and other’s may have more or less), using logical inference, that the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism.

    Any takers?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    What survival value does math hold?3017amen

    So starting with that again, regardless of whether mathematics has survival value, traits are not required to have positive survival value, or necessity, to persist. All that's required is that traits do not have a significant enough negative survival value to end up making that species go extinct.

    So when you're wondering why some trait exists, assuming that it must have positive survival value to exist, or that it must be necessary, is a misconception.

    Again, this is regardless of whether any particular trait has positive, neutral or negative survival value.

    By the way, atheism has zero connection to evolutionary theory.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    the probability of a Deity3017amen

    I don't at all buy Bayesian probability, by the way. I only buy frequentist probability, and even that has problems in my view.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    Any view of whats true based on probability always seems pretty dodgy to me. Probability is not aw effective as the scientific method, or even just simple reasoning.
    This is an example of vacant religious claims, to think that atheism is in trouble in our modern times is the product of a religious “bubble” where reality just isnt getting through.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k


    Exactly. It strikes me that a lot of it is simply about folks feeling better/more confident and secure about their own view. If they can support it in a way that seems satisfactorily "intellectual" to them, they're more comfortable holding it than they would be otherwise.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    I'm confused. So are you saying the ability of mathematical computation is by chance? Explain that in greater detail if you could.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    Why are you people in the minority?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    So are you saying the ability of mathematical computation is by chance?3017amen

    No.

    I'm saying that it doesn't need to have positive or even neutral survival value, and there doesn't have to be a need for it. That doesn't imply that we're talking about random phenomena. Something with slightly negative survival value can arise, via a genetic mutation, via processes that are not random.

    Note that this isn't saying anything about the survival value of mathematical abilities. It's just a general truth about evolution.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Did you know that probabilistic calculations actually don't apply to some natural systems?

    I just finished reading a section in "The Systems View of LIfe" describing the creation of artificial cells. Basically, they dump a minimal set up proteins along with an encapsulating agent (a lipid) into a container. Cell formation requires that all the components become encapsulated together. The number is about 90 and statistically, this should never occur (i.e. all 90 elements becoming encapsulated in the tiny spaces involved.) However it does happen. What occurs is that some membranes have NO encapsulated elements while others get the full set.

    The hypothesis is that what is going on is a non-linear dynamic system, the formation of the cell aligning with what is called a "strange-attractor" which represents a stabilized condition of the overall system.

    So statistical/probabilistic computations do work for classical closed thermodynamic systems, but not necessarily non-linear ones....
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
    Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    We are in the minority because the institutions from a bygone era of ignorant superstitions still exist and exert influence and control.
    What you should be noticing is how vastly more common atheism is in our modern time, and spreading ever faster. There is also a huge shift in just how committed people are to any particular religion, a transitional state on the road to atheism.
  • NOS4A2
    9.2k


    I will demonstrate through those seven aforementioned phenomena (and other’s may have more or less), using logical inference, that the probability of a Deity is much more tenable than no-thing, nihilism or: Atheism.

    I, for one, would love to see your demonstration. When will that occur?
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    "I, for one, would love to see your demonstration. When will that occur? "

    Sure, let's examine number 4. Sense of purpose/Love.

    Please Tell me what Love is?

    Examples could be: subjective truth, objective truth, phenomena of some sort, or... ?

    Assuming you're an atheist, you consider there is no mystery in the world, therefore you must use logic to explain human existence. Therefore, please explain that human phenomenon using logic.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
    Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing.

    Sure I get that. But are you suggesting all of life is logical?
  • NOS4A2
    9.2k


    Sure, let's examine number 4. Sense of purpose/Love.

    Please Tell me what Love is?

    Examples could be: subjective truth, objective truth, phenomena of some sort, or... ?

    Assuming you're an atheist, you consider there is no mystery in the world, therefore you must use logic to explain human existence. Therefore, please explain that human phenomenon using logic.

    Oh sorry, I thought you were going to do the demonstrating. I’ll pass.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    By the way, atheism has zero connection to evolutionary theory.


    Okay. then how do you explain why we have that ability? I mean really, these are simple existential questions that you as an Atheist must have grappled with at some point right TS?
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    No im not suggesting that at all...so do you “get that” after all?
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    Oh sorry, I thought you were going to do the demonstrating. I’ll pass


    LOL, that's what I thought; one down more to go!

    Let me know when you got it figured out!
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    No im not suggesting that at all...so do you “get that” after all?


    I'm not following you. Are you saying that Atheism is untenable in some way?
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    Thank you kindly for name-dropping that book. I took a quick look-see an am very intrigued...
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    And I'll do you one back; have you read The Mind of God by Physicist Paul Davies?
  • Isaac
    10.3k
    Assuming you're an atheist, you consider there is no mystery in the world,3017amen

    Eh? Where are you getting that link from? Atheism is the belief that no gods exist, not the belief that no mysteries exist, that would be amysterism.
  • alcontali
    1.3k
    …I feel sorry for Atheists.3017amen

    I believe that every misbehaviour is its own punishment. If someone does something that will not keep flying, then let it just crash in a natural way. That is why I do not give a flying fart about atheism. Let them just do whatever they want, because in the end, who cares? Unless, of course, if they try to impose their views onto me. That is when I get pissed off.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    No, im not saying that either. No idea where you are getting that from. This is why when you said “I get that” I think you were mistaken. You don’t seem to get my point at all, but true to the point I was actually making you have responded vacantly.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    Whats an example of an atheist trying to impose their views?
  • Artemis
    1.9k


    While I'm in agreement with your description of how the survival mechanism of evolution happens, I do think there has to be positive survival value to higher cognition.

    Superfluous traits usually get weeded out because they cost calories, and surivival is in part about being calorie efficient. Since the human brain uses 20-30% of our daily calories, it suggests that there has to be good reason to maintain it at that level of complexity.

    Also, evolution works through survival and reproductive mechanisms. Frogs, for example, usually don't make it past tadpole-hood, but they make up for it in laying hundreds of eggs at a time.

    I've read some theories that art is a reproductive value: showing that you have the extra calories and resources to invest in art makes you attractive to a mate since it suggests a greater ability to provide for offspring.
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    Why are you people in the minority?3017amen

    ...in the US (but it's not like there's anything outside the US, right? - not anything that matters, anyway.)

    Why are people of color in the US on average poorer and less educated than white people? Something must be wrong with them, or they must be doing something wrong.
  • praxis
    6.5k
    I've read some theories that art is a reproductive value: showing that you have the extra calories and resources to invest in art makes you attractive to a mate since it suggests a greater ability to provide for offspring.Artemis

    Analogous to a peacocks feathers. I’ve seen that theory debunked but I don’t recall how exactly.

    Do you tend to find artists sexy, by the way?
  • praxis
    6.5k
    Atheism is just another religion; at worse it’s just Nihilism.3017amen

    This alone indicates that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
  • 3017amen
    3.1k


    I hear you Alcontali. And I also respect your learn-ed mind. I've read many of your posts.

    Did you have any thoughts on the 7 existential phenomena ( our conscious experience) examples, that would suggest Diety?
  • 3017amen
    3.1k
    Thats why “brainwashing” seems like such an accurate word when describing how people come to religion. Trained from childhood to accept utterly vacant claims, to call the illogical logical, and to be taught meaningless terms are actually the most meaningful. (IE faith).
    Its unfortunate that an accurate term like delusional, or irrational is dismissed out of hand by the religious when just accepting the potential accuracy would be enough for them to shake off the brainwashing

    You mean that statement you made above? Those are psychological statements of discontent. What would you like me to do with them?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.