I dunno, that's pretty vague.

One aspect of the popularity of dawkins is that being an eloquent radical atheist is currently somewhat profitable. Preaching to the choir is especially attractive if the choir is willing to shell out $25 dollars for a hardcover version of something they already knew. If you as a publisher knew you have stumbled upon a sizable community of similarly minded folks who feel somewhat slighted by popular culture and you have also stumbled upon a person who could speak eloquently to and about that community in way which would inspire controversy, and consequently sales, in the general public you'd be negligent to your shareholders for not publishing the author's work.

I know that atheism is nothing new, and i'm pretty sure that dawkins isn't the first person with the ability to express atheism as a persuasive argument. Maybe the growth in radical atheism is more just a symptom that atheists have finally joined that that oh-so-coveted "oppressed with money" demographic.

If someone were willing to pay me a lot of money to write a book and debate other people about nature of my perspective, i'd do it.

You people don't pay me shit for it.

He said it was for agnostics.

Also, I might buy your book.

If i ever write one you're on the comp list, will.

Likewise!

You're correct, but I don't see your point. Are you implying that he's incorrect or that he doesn't believe what he writes?

I'd go for he doesn't believe what he writes, as he'll frequently backtrack on his position if pressed hard enough.

I've never seen that. Do you have a citation, IL?

I haven't read any of his books (just started working my way through The End of Faith), but I have watched interviews and debates with him and he doesn't seem to backtrack. I'd also like a citation.

I'm implying that atheism's sudden rise is the result of commercial interests recognizing that people will pay money to read about atheist perspectives. It's not like dawkins is the first person to be able to persuasively argue against the existence of god. He's polarizing, and people will pay money to watch him be polarizing.

The rise started before God Delusion. It started around the time conservative fundamentalists started getting political and social power again, between 1999 and 2001. God Delusion came out in 2006. It's backlash, not commercialism.

"Atheism's sudden rise" is not a result of commercial interests. Rather, the fact that these books are immensely popular (and profitable) is a result of the "sudden rise" of atheism.

Of course people like Dawkins, Hitchins and Harris are not the first to hold these views. They are, however, the modern people who are discussing them most convincingly and with the most clarity.

i would still maintain that there is no "sudden rise" except of conservative christian rhetoric, the kind that imputes its own political defeat to the some outside malign Force--in this case, atheism, but it just as easily could be Natas.
so the thread is geared around treating a rhetoric designed to recode political defeat as a description of the world.
and it immediately encountered problems
and that simply because
you cant find what isnt there.

I don't see many atheist threads before 2006. I remember seeing figures back in 2003 that said 2-3% of the population of the US was atheist, now they're estimating closer to 10%. I'd call that a rise.

Here's what i think happened. A few eloquent atheists wrote persuasive books about why atheism is the bee's knees. Many people bought the books, including atheists and more ambivalent folk. Ambivalent folk, who quite possibly weren't formal christians anyway, read persuasive arguments endorsing atheism, become enraptured by eloquent atheist proponents, become atheists, atheism suddenly rises.

Either that or the number of atheists isn't really rising, atheism is just becoming more acceptable, so that more people are comfortable with calling themselves atheists and popular culture changes to reflect this fact.
I wouldn't doubt that christian conservatism has something to do with it, but i don't think anyone can be sure to what extent. Becoming an atheist is not necessarily a step along the way to rejecting christian conservatism.

Oh the social parallel between atheism and homosexuality....

This is what I think. Visibility isn't the same as presence. We're more aware in the last couple of years because of profit-creating things like books, but I don't think there has been a drastic increase in the number of atheists in the general population.

I know, i was going to mention the same thing in my last post but i couldn't think up any funny names for an atheism-themed analog to "will and grace".

You're probably correct that the atheist population is becoming more visible but isn't necessarily growing.

The parallels to any socially unacceptable behavior are there for atheism.

I think the big difference between now and then is that this is the information age. You don't have to attend meetings and have a news letter you are afraid to get delivered to your home lest your neighbors see it.

100 years ago, someone like myself may have had a few educated peers to discuss such matters, but it would never go beyond that. Today, even if you don't feel comfortable 'coming out' you can discuss it on places like this or any number of other websites.

I'd venture to guess the books on it, are more due to this allowed discourse, and they then fuel more discourse. We don't need someone like Richard Dawkins to talk about atheism, I have been an atheist for 29 years now and I've heard of Richard Dawkins less than one year. What it does give us is a common reference which aids the discourse.

It also allows us to eliminate some of the normal arguments and straw men. Rather then trying to personally explain why intelligence design falls down, or the famous 747 theory, we can dispense of that right from the start.

what i meant is that atheism is simply being referenced more often as the fortunes of the christian right disintegrate. so it---"atheism"---is a way for the christian right to talk about itself, really in the present context---since there is no atheist thing or organization--and despite the projections of some xtian-types, it is not a religion, not the mirror image of one, not the same at all---it is impossible to know about shifts in non-belief statistically....

Ah, hell, you could no doubt add it up if you wanted to.

Emphasis on the doubt.

I admire you, roachboy.

Thank you!

Bandwagon? maybe. I think the increase is, more than anything, due to a few people making the first leap and revealing their atheism. No one wants to be the person walks the unbeaten path but people are more willing to follow in other's foot steps. Now that it's becoming increasingly socially acceptable, I think you will find that more and more people are willing to "come out of the closet" and reveal their lack of religion.

I believe in aliens more than god.

i believe its more kind of trend and decresing amount of religious intensity among people ...
and its good ... people should not have imaginary friends :p

Having been an atheist since about the age of 14 (having only really come out in the past few years), it's been interesting to watch it become main stream recently. I'm still curious where it will come to rest in the public eye once the Zealot has left his oval office and we see a more secular phase in the government for the next 4 or 8 years. Hilary is Christian, sure, but so was Bill and that didn't seem to stop him from leaving god tied up outside the White House while he worked. Will this end the rebellious movement away from religion or facilitate the momentum already built? Only time will tell.

I live and breathe.
Would a believer tell me I must not think?
I think not.

God would have us complete (his) grand experiment.

I have remained an atheist since birth, but as a Canadian, I get a little nervous about what's happening south of the border. I don't think we can hinge this kind of thing on the president. It is more about the culture at large. Christians in general have a lot of influence and power in America. It will be interesting to see how things pan out with atheism becoming more visible and in many cases assumed. Perhaps a culture war, perhaps not. Who knows?

Christians are far less likely to vote enmass for one candidate or party than Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, or union labor.

Really I think most of it is meant to scare you. Those nasty f undies are coming for you, you better vote for someone to fight them!

I'm sure there is influence beyond casting ballots, is there not?

Well if so they are doing a bad job about it. America has become far more open to thinks like gay marriage then they were 20 years ago. Its wrong to say they have no influence, but I think its far more of a smoke screen used by their opponents then a true movement.

Abortions are still legal, and all that.

Growing up with an Atheist
 

When I was young my step-father was killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. Paul was a good man. He had just become a father to my little brother Michael. My parents had an argument and he went to cool off with a drive. His toyota was smashed between a cadillac and a van driven by a 4 time convicted drunk driver.

Following this my mother filled the house with books about death and dying. I read many of them because I too was troubled with where my dad was and why he wasnt coming back. I was 9.

At my father's funeral two of his brothers showed up drunk, having driven themselves to the service. My mother was.....unpleased. For the next hour she listened to a catholic priest explain to her how all this was part of "God's Plan" and how we all had to surrender to his will and that he was a kind and loving god who had....blah blah blah. I think you can all fill in the blanks.

That day my mother became an Athiest. She refused to believe in a god who could take a father from his son. She tried for several years to find a god she could find solace and comfort in. She never did. My mother is an Athiest and a well educated and reasoned woman. I am a Buddhist and we discuss theology on occasion.

this is her side: atheism is not, for her, an easy choice. She is not angry at any religion, tho in my opinion this would be an easy call for her to make. She believes in herself. Without ever having read Ayn Rand she shares many of her ideals. She believes in the grace we all have within ourselves. The ability we have to be good people. Good not in the "Holy" sense but in the sense that we excell and create and lead our lives without crediting any god or gods with our achievements but not using him as a crutch or excuse when things go badly.

I think Atheism is a positive choice for her and fits well into her lifestyle. My mother never has been or will be "rich" or independantly wealthy. She prefers to stand on her own two feet. I admire my mother for who she is and what she has done with her life.

Seems bitter to me >_>

If sort of licensed,
We might have it in our genes
Or in our Levi's.

Atheism will never promote itself because it has no agenda. The godists don't get this and won't, even after they die.

You have to laugh or else you'll cry!

Theism already experienced its rise - what makes it selfish?

*Shakes his head in shame*

Well...more people have seen aliens. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/rhlandis/huh.gif

Some people are upset at religion's control over public figures in government.

Some people who were once very religious are later exposed to the internet, or other sources, and question what they've been taught. Information has become more readily available than ever in just the past 10 years, by virtue of the internet alone.

People with access to information and different points of view will either shut it out, or learn. Sometimes, people learn and decide the new information makes more sense to them because now they have that information. Anything can seem nice, or good, if you've never been properly educated in what else is "out there". Plenty of people convert to religion, just as plenty of people convert away from religion.

Some people find emptiness in their lives and religion fills the void. Some people feel the same emptiness and feel nothing for a "God", seeking their fulfillment elsewhere. Some people are just looking for acceptance into a community or social group- and that argument works for both being religious or being atheistic.

People educate themselves and make decisions... they figure out what's important to them and decide on what feels right to them. People are armed to the teeth with information and the frequency and high profile of religious debate makes people either steel, or question, their existing resolve.

The real question, to me, is this:

Is atheism REALLY that much on the rise? Or is it that those certain religious people who foam at the mouth over atheism are yelling louder than ever and with bigger voices?

So I got to thinking about an earlier comment I made. Let's say an atheist's argument against the existence of God is as such: God doesn't exist because we can't prove Him and God doesn't exist because we can prove Him. Therefore, there are only two conditions under which an atheist's claim that God doesn't exist can be true.

1.) We have proof that God doesn't exist or
2.) We don't have proof that God doesn't exist.

Conversely, a theist's argument for the existence of God would be: God exists because we can prove Him and God exists because we can't prove him. Therefore, the two conditions under which this would be true are if

1.) We have proof that God exists or
2.) We don't have proof that God exists.

Since #1 in both circumstances is an impossibility in the scientific sense, we'll throw them out. Therefore, we're left with two arguments whose conclusions rely on the fact that neither can be proven. So, knowing this, I'm kinda' wondering how one argument can be considered more 'logical' than the other.

:orly:

Enlighten me, please.

Well as I've said there are two flavors of atheists, those that absolutely don't believe and those that can't disprove a negative. I call them weak and strong atheists, but other people have different meanings for those terms, so I'll have to make up new ones.

Super-Atheism: This is a belief system in which the existence of god is absolutely untrue. One knows totally that nothing beyond what we understand exists, and god does not exist without any margin of error. This makes up a very small amount of atheists, by my rough guess (not verifiable numbers) less than 5% of atheists could be considered a super-atheist.

Scientific Atheism: This is a belief system simply built upon reasonable deduction based on available evidence. Because no credible evidence exists to demonstrate the existence of god, and because there is evidence that god is fictitious, it's unreasonable to absolutely or partially believe in god. If one were to ask a scientific atheist if god exists, the reply would be something like "Almost certainly not." This is a vast majority of atheists.

I thought the primary position of atheists is that we don't have proof that God does exist. Did I misread your post or did you skip that one?

Bingo. The God of the Abrahamic religions has not been proven to be true or false, but given the available evidence it is reasonable to believe the latter. Claiming to "know" that God doesn't exist is as ridiculous as claiming to "know" that he does.

But really, what's more likely?
-The bible is the word of an omniscient, omnipotent being who created Heaven and Earth in less than a week.
-The bible, like every other book, is a human creation.

There is nothing inherently irrational about theist ideas- they directly follow from the assumptions on which they are based. This is the very definition of rational. As far as logic goes- anyone who has taken a logic class, or has read much about the subject could tell you that the subject of a logical statement is practically irrelevant in the context of whether it is "logical" or not. All sentences are logical statements. The classic example would be something like, "If it rains tomorrow, the sky is purple." This statement is a logical statement, or two if you felt like breaking it up. If you wanted to evaluate it as such you could see that under specific circumstances(when it isn't raining) it is actually true.

The words "logic" and "rational" mean different things in the context of a discussion on atheism than they do in the everyday. The presumption in their use is that the theist isn't logical or rational or reasonable because they haven't arrived at the same conclusions about the nature of the universe as has the atheist. It actually has less to do with logic or rationality or reason and more to do with the differing assumptions each group has made about the nature of the beast.

No. You didn't skip it. I interpreted that as "God doesn't exist because we can't prove Him".

Fair enough, I suppose.

The beast being the universe? That's the thing, when it comes to matters which are outside the scope of religion, most religious people are happy to use deductive reasoning. The majority of atheists, myself included, simply apply that same deductive reasoning used in every day life to theism and find it lacking in evidence.

It is possible to reason deductively that god exists.

Can you demonstrate, please?

Well, i'm not really a theist, so i don't know what they'd say. It would really be as simple as saying that you know god exists because you believe that nothing could exist without god. Or, you know, the whole irreducible complexity thing. Or anyone who thought that they had had a spiritual experience could deductively claim the existence of a god. Deductive reasoning doesn't always have to be credible from an atheistic scientific standpoint to be valid deductive reasoning.

What I mean to say that when one is trying to discover if something is or isn't real from a logical standpoint, one cannot presuppose it's existence. Therefore, in order to reason as to whether god exists or not, one cannot assume god exists. If one does not assume god exists, then considering that god is the most complex and unlikely explanation for anything because he/she/it can break the rules of established science, god automatically becomes the least likely explanation.

As least that's how I see it.

If you really think this, than you can't even discover if you are real from a logical standpoint.

I see what you're saying, but i don't know how you can claim that a god assumption is the most unlikely and complex explanation for anything. I took a chemistry class once, and let me tell you, the first day was more complex and unlikely than anything i was ever exposed to when i went to church. Little balls of charged mass? Electromagnetism? Orbitals? Shit man, try explaining that stuff to a 7 year old if you ever have one handy and you'll get an wonderful reminder of how absurd it all is. God is the simplest- and in many cases the least interesting- explanation possible. God is. There is no reason and there doesn't need to be, because god is unknowable- or something, i don't know.

Science is the most complex answer to anything- implicit in it is a never ending chain of questions. Things can only get more complex when one takes the scientific route.

I also don't think it necessarily makes sense to judge the unknown in the context of science when science doesn't necessarily have anything specific to say about the unknown other than that it is, well, unknown. Science is only relevant in reference to things that are (relatively) known.

Simple to explain? Yes, god is simple to explain to a child who doesn't ask why until they get the whole picture. And if they do, you can just give them the "we weren't meant to understand" line. That line is why the god character is so complex. What would it take to create a universe, to create physics and biology? The answer must be more complex than what it resulted in. That's what I mean by complex.

It's what you said: "god is unknowable- or something, i don't know." That's the complexity, and also a trapping of theism. He's too complex for us to study or to try to explain, so why bother? That's intellectual suicide.

That's a circular definition of complexity. Why must the answer be more complex than what it resulted in? God, at the very least, has always been a useful approximation for the things that lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

It doesn't have to be a matter of "we weren't meant to understand." It can also be a matter of, "It doesn't really matter either way, so believe whatever you want; as long as you trust yourself and keep an open mind you will be miles ahead of anyone who can only rigidly adhere to their own dogmatic perspective."

Not in any kind of meaningful way. Some of the greatest intellectuals in history were theists, many of them better scientists than you or i or dawkins. Many theists spend an inordinate amount of time refining their theological perspectives; theism can be a very intense intellectual activity.

Don't get me wrong. It is important to be able to understand and utilize a systematic way of evaluating the information provided by the world around you; this is science. It is also important to be able to make sense of things that can't be evaluated in the context of the scientific method. This is where science breaks down. I think that if there is any place where god could fit in, it would be here.

If you can prove Him then God must exist. If you can't prove God exists then that only proves His nature, therefore meaning He must exist.

There ya' go! :thumbsup:

I have to wonder if there is something inherent in logical beings where we are willing to accept that which really makes no sense as 'truth' as long as it supports or is required for our world view.

I do not require a god for my world view. Therefore I can be dispassionate and see just how silly all the effort people put into religion seems to be. Its like adults playing make believe when I see it.

But while someone can be logical about a world view that isn't shared, they seem to have problems when it comes to their own. A Christian can make fun of a neo-pagans beliefs, and there is plenty to make fun of there, yet not see the same silliness when they go to church to eat jewish zombie crackers.

But the same applies to more than just religion. There is a basic blindness people seem to have based on this world view, where probability and logic just can't soak in. I've often thought that for a lot of people, politics have replaced their religion, and perhaps thats exactly what it has. They get rid of their one wacky world view idea but then replace it with another one.

The question is can you look at your own world view and find your wacky spots? I'd like to think I can, but who knows, people have been willing to die for theirs so finding them might be beyond what a lot of people can do.

The only thing that does is destroy my belief that deduction and logic are useful tools for understanding the world.

It kind of reminds me of the paradox of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I'm honestly not saying that to make fun of anyone's sincerely held beliefs. The statements really do seem similar to me.

When something runs against the laws of physics it must be more complex than physics if it's real. Also, as Dawkins has said, anything that knows what god knows and can do what god does must be complex. A designer must have at least as much information as what he designs. The maintainer must have power over that which is maintained. That's the complexity.
Asking someone not to question is telling them that understanding something isn't necessary. From a theistic framework, I guess it's fine (ignorance is bliss?), but for someone seeking answers (someone who would ask the "why" questions, it's like turing them away when they need help with answers.
Working within a framework is like playing in the sandbox. It's fun, and it helps you to understand the sandbox, but it ignores everything outside the sandbox. Everything else that may help you understand the sandbox better—knowing that the sand comes from a beach and the wood is from a forest, and that you can purchase a sandbox from places or build one yourself—is unattainable lest you work outside the framework. I'm not suggesting there is anything wrong with the framework per se, but the lack of perspective can ultimately be self defeating if you are honestly seeking a full knowledge.
I think the point of divergence lies above: "It is also important to be able to make sense of things that can't be evaluated in the context of the scientific method." Because there is no evidence to suggest anything exists that's beyond the scope of the scientific method, why would one try to make sense of anything by dropping it? I mean science can't break down. Mistakes in science break down all the time—hypothesis' that turn out to be wrong, for example—but science didn't break down. Human fallibility broke it down. Science is simply systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (www.dictionary.com). Science is the explanation of what is. Explanations that are wrong aren't science.

Will, when something runs against the laws of physics, it means that the laws of physics are either wrong or that they are being misapplied. Complexity has nothing to do with it. And if dawkins really claimed that anything that knows what god know and can do what god does must be complex then he is making claims without evidence. The fact, and any scientist would tell you this, is that we aren't in a position to comment about the nature of a god, scientifically, because we have no clue what that nature is. Speculation is fine, but it would seem to me that if your whole perspective is based on the idea that unsubstantiated speculation is bad, as apparently yours is, you should probably avoid engaging in it.

So you're saying there's an important difference between telling someone that we don't know what happens when we die so they shouldn't believe in anything and telling them that as long as they don't deny the validity of things for which there is evidence then there's nothing wrong with believing whatever they want to believe when it comes to death? I guess. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and i'm not sure where ignorance comes in, since ignorance would seem to imply that you know something about the afterlife and the folks who don't see things your way are doing so out of ignorance.

"Full knowledge"? What does that mean? If you're going to define knowledge only as something that can only be derived through scientific means, then of course you're going to question the validity of any other kind of knowledge. I don't share your definition.

Will, i know what science is, and i know that it isn't present in a lot of the claims that you make about it. It can and will break down. There are many things that it is at a complete loss to explain, there are even some things it has proven itself to be unable to explain (heisenburg uncertainty) and, depending on how you look at godel's incompleteness theorem (hawking thought it a persuasive argument against the existence of a unified field theory), there have to be a lot of things that it will never be able to consistently account for.



*ahem* libertarianism *ahem* ;)

Oh I know its down sides, but all governments are wacky ;)

TBH I'm more libertarian lite.

Science is at a loss to explain nothing. People simply haven't discovered that science yet. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been explained. Does that mean it's unexplainable? Of course not.

i have to chime in at this point and say that i am quite convinced that 1. 'science,' or objective descriptive systems, will never fully explain the universe, how it got where it is and why it's there. 2. there is no proof that any scientific theory is 'true;' only that these theories are convenient and that they make predictions which are sufficiently close to our interpretations of what we observe such that we call them 'true.'

i hold that there are types of knowledge and experience which are cleanly outside the purview of science.

Depending on how i read that first sentence, we either agree or disgree.

1)If you mean that science can't explain "nothing" as in science is incapable of evaluating the things on which it cannot focus its analytical lens then we agree about this. What we don't agree on is whether it is prudent to make up your own explanations for things on which science has nothing to say. I say that it isn't a problem, it can sometimes be incredibly useful, and is generally to be encouraged as long as in the process one doesn't lose sight of the things that science does have to say.

If the above interpretation is correct, proceed to 3), otherwise, if you meant to say that there is nothing for which science is at a loss to explain, given enough time to figure it out, well...

2)Let me put it like this. To my knowledge there is nothing anywhere, ever, that should lead anyone to believe with any amount of confidence that science is capable of explaining everything. There is no proof for this belief. There isn't probability for this belief.

It is a hypothesis that is by definition completely untestable- you can't test something if it is impossible for you to test it. If there did exist some phenomena that was beyond the scope of scientific testing, you'd have no way of knowing because all the means by which you could find out would be useless from the get-go.

The fact that as a hypothesis it is completely untestable means that it is not a "scientific" idea, and i doubt you'll find many people in the who do a lot of science who are willing to go on record as believing that science is capable of explaining everything. Even if they were willing to claim this, the fact that they have no way of knowing whether the idea is even plausible means that they are committing an act of faith very akin to a belief in god.

A systematic way of making sense of the world(science) does not necessarily lead to some sort of macroscopic omniscience, where at some point everything to be known will be known and everything can be explained.

I'm finding interesting parallels between your insistence that science can explain everything and the insistence by some theists that heaven awaits them. Is there such a thing as salvation empiricism? Can you live comfortably in a world where some things are unknowable?


3) Whether the heisenburg uncertainty thing has been explained or not is irrelevant when you pay attention to what it says- namely that there is a limit to what we can know about a particle at any particular time- aka there are some things we can't know regardless of how much science we throw at them. This is scientific evidence for limitations on scientific knowledge.

I concur. A molecule is nothing more than a convenient concept. A horse is a pig that don't fly straight.

Addiction, to me, refers to a physiological condition that someone is born with or without, though it can also be created through heavy drug use. It doesn't really have anything to do with self control. Someone who looks at an addict and thinks the addict lacks their self control is like someone with a fever of 99.5 looking at someone with a fever of 104 and saying, "I've got a fever too. It's not so bad. Get off your butt and get back to work." There are several firm scientific grounds for the disease theory on addiction that I'm not educated enough to repeat to you right now, but I'm sure if you look it up you won't have much trouble finding information on it. I know a few important things though. For one, "addicts" are true responders. The euphoria they feel on any substance is greater than the effects another would feel. Another is that their bodies acclimate to the substances faster than other people would. Finally, there is a chemical in their brain that seeks to metabolize euphoria inducing substances, and when they aren't found, the mind will forcefully seek out more. It's much more chemical than I had thought before I heard all the science mumbo-jumbo.

In the words of Mitch Hedberg, "It's funny. Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only disease you get yelled at for having. 'Damn it Bob, you're an alcoholic!' 'Damn it Bob, you have lupus!' One of those doesn't sound right."

As for the sudden rise of atheism, atheism isn't a novel concept. It's not like it just recently came into existence. However, that doesn't mean the media isn't beginning to focus on it more. Personally, I don't see much of an "atheist bandwagon" out there, except in the high-school goth crowd where kids just want to feel a little more grown up by choosing a 'grown up' religion. Other than that, I don't see many people declaring themselves to be atheist because it's 'the cool thing to do'.

I thought this was relevant, but didn't think of a way to work it in: in a recent survey, 2% of the population reported their religion to be atheism, meaning the belief in no God, as opposed to agnostic, "I believe in God, just not sure about much else."

I would argue that atheism is a religion. It's a person's set of beliefs about the nature of the universe. Lack of religion may not be entirely accurate.

Science can't explain what isn't. That which science cannot focus it's analytical lens simply isn't. That said, just because we don't know all of the facts yet doesn't mean that there are no facts. There are facts yet to be discovered, and they are as much a part of science as that which we've already discovered.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle represents surrender. It basically reads "we can't measure it now, so it cannot be measured". What about 15 years from now when we are projected to start developing working quantum computers? I'm not a physicist, but saying a physical phenomenon cannot be explained ever seems shortsighted.

So are you agreeing with me that science can't explain everything? If not, do you have some sort of rebuttal to what i said?

I'm not a physicist either, but i'm not really sure that it is prudent to argue from an ostensibly pro-science position that what seems like a general consensus among quantum physicists is wrong because it offends your sense of the way things ought to be. Interestingly enough, you are agreeing with einstein when he said, "I cannot believe that god would choose to play dice with the universe." This might be an odd position in which to find yourself in.

Atheism isn't a fundamental belief, it's an evolving understanding. It's neither uniform nor unchanging. The term atheism is actually not dissimilar from terms like "pagan" or "gentile" wherein it refers to a person for what they are not instead of for what they are. An atheist disbelieves in a supreme being. That's hardly a doctrine or "set of beliefs", and we have no necessary actions to accompany our understanding.

BTW, you only used description #2. Here is all of them:
If when you say "everything" you're not only referring to what is but also fiction and what isn't, then yes I agree that science cannot explain everything. If, however, you mean everything as in that which is in the universe that is real and not fictitious, then I disagree. I needed clarification before presenting a rebuttal.
My understanding of the uncertainty principle not a sense, it's an observation based on tons of precedence. I'm also not aware of a general consensus on Heisenberg, either. As I understand it, many physicists agree that it's something we cannot solve today, but that hardly means it's something we can't solve tomorrow.

quick note on uncertainty principle, taken straight from the most accurate source on the web wiki wiki

the important thing is that the uncertainty principle isn't a product of imperfect measuring devices, but as we currently understand it, is an intrinsic limitation on the ability to make certain measurements of very small, very fast systems. we may, of course, reformulate physics and find that, voila!, no more uncertainty...but for now, it's what it is.

of course, this could get around to the question of whether science can ever 'know' anything, or whether or not it only describes things so that we can reproducibly predict outcomes with statistically reasonable bounds. if you accept the 2nd statement (i will say now that i do), then i have to ask myself what knowledge, in that context, means, and whether or not other types of knowledge are available. i think they are.

as they say, god is in the details.

[EDIT: Sorry, I had a computer glitch here yesterday apparently.]

I did not post all of the definitions as a space saver, not because they do not support my argument. Let's go through them.

1. applies to atheism

2. applies to atheism

3. applies to atheism

4. applies to atheism

5. This one may not. One might argue that a practice like education or work would qualify, but let's say it doesn't. I concede this definition.

6. applies to atheism

7. I don't fully understand this definition. Let's say I concede it too.

8. applies to atheism

9.
a.applies to atheism
b.applies to atheism

So two of these wordings don't apply to atheism, but seven do. I'd say this is good initial evidence to support that atheism is a religion, but let's continue to explore the topic.

Neither is religion. My religion is not unchanging or uniform. Many people express it in their own ways, but they all take on a common name. Mine changes with me on a daily basis, because I change on a daily basis. It is my own evolving understanding.

The difference between the term atheist and the terms pagan or gentile is that the latter two were invented by people who belong to a certain religion to describe those outside it. I hear many atheists describe themselves as being atheist. It is a word for a certain belief, not a lack of one. Of course, that entire argument is simply a matter of perspective.

Let's define doctrine too. I'll use all the definitions this time.

Your statement is self-contradictory. You claim that atheists have no doctrine, though many share the same one. The doctrine of science. I'll immediately concede that this is not a bullet-proof argument, but I know one doctrine that all atheists agree on without exception, for it is the very definition of being atheist, as you said. "There is no God." As you put it, "An atheist disbelieves in a supreme being." Not only is this a central belief to all atheists, but many are quite vocal about it and want to convert others to their religious beliefs.

That about wraps it up for me I guess. *whew* If I had said that out loud, I'd need to catch my breath.

yukimura: i dont find that argument to be compelling.

it seems to me that the only folk who claim atheism is a religion are themselves religious one way or another and so seem to be motivated by an inability to imagine the world as ordered differently from themselves. from this follows a compulsion to assimilate a category like atheism into itself, as a mirror image of itself, a religion without this god character.

well, it isnt.
there's no movement.
there's no organization.
there's no ritual. no liturgy.
no shared committments to anything.
there is no community.
there are just people who use the word to situate themselves in certain types of conversations, which unfold within particular contexts (like this.)

You're describing spirituality.
Actually, the term atheism was not developed by atheists (don't bother with wiki, some asshole bigot erased the page).
You claim that there's no atheist doctrine? How about science? That may not be fair, I'm not sure. It's more an actual question. If that one's not enough, how about the simple doctrine that I'm more sure of, "There is no god."[/QUOTE]
Not all atheists are rationalists. Some people don't believe in god because they feel like it and it has no roots in rationalism whatsoever. I do not represent all atheists, of course.
Atheism isn't a religion any more than gentile is a race.

I'm describing religion. Religion can work this way. I'm sure you don't believe that, but it's true.

Nonetheless, it is used by atheists. I wouldn't call myself a gentile.

Nonetheless, the central doctrine of "There is no God," does apply, regardless of how they came to the conclusion.

Is too. :-P

atheism is a noun.
that's all.

Religion is not "an expression of the spirit within", it's a set of doctrines. I'm always surprised by how many theists confuse the two terms.
But you could. It really doesn't matter what you call yourself, and it matters even less where the words originated. The word Jew describes what you are and gentile describes what you are not. Likewise, theist or "religious" describes what you are, and atheist describes what you are not.
Not believing in something isn't a doctrine.


BTW, why do atheists have to know so much about theism? It's a goofy, and horribly ironic reality that is terribly frustrating.

I don't believe in smurfs, either, does that make not-believing in smurfs a religion?

Asmurfic?

Hmmm... so, we should take sicence as far as we can, and reap the benefits as we go. There will come a point, though, where the limits have been reached. This is where we have to ask, "And So?"

Will there? I'm not so sure. Between the fact that humanity could become extinct and the fact that we've really only begun to develop some sciences, it's hard to say if there will be one day where a scientist goes, "Okay, I'm done. Science is over", without saying it as a joke on the internet, sarcastically.

I was refering to (what I thought was the current post on) the Heisenberg principal.

But, to answer your question, following the premise of said principal, I think that there will come that point where the scientific method fails us. Science may not be over, but the pushing of the boundaries may come to an end.

Prior to the beginning of the universe, what was there? what began the big bang (if big bang is current science)?

i highly doubt that scientific inquiry will ever come to an end...if i recall correctly, in the period after newtonian physics and prior to that of relativity / quantum etc - the feeling was that the universe was just a big set of billiard balls. all the basic fundamental relationships were known, and the rest was just fleshing it out....then whoops!: there's all this other stuff to consider. if scientific inquiry can give us increasingly sophisticated concepts to explain how the universe operates, it seems to have very little to say about what the universe fundamentally is or why it is here. i do not think those types of inquiries are purely in the realm of 'science.' furthermore, all the 'hows' of our scientific explanations don't really tell us 'how it works...,' they only give us a consistent set of relationships that allow us to categorize and predict future events....that doesn't mean any of it is 'true'. at least, that's how it seems to me.

This assumes there was a beginning to the universe. If you mean the big bang, occurrences may very well have preceded the big bang. We don't know. Yet. One popular theory says that there have always been big bangs following big crunches following big bangs and so on. A sort of chicken/egg conundrum on a mass scale.
There's a lot of speculation, but we probably won't be getting any decently backable answers until we have more data.
You're correct.

BTW, "why" the universe is here is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science gives us the how, not the why. Well psychology can provide the why, but that's another thread.

Oh that should be good, please do.

Some of the why, not all it. Why does he compulsively gamble? Psychology to the rescue. Why are we here? Nope, that's philosophy.

Ah I thought you were talking the whole 'why are we here'.

Damn, that would have been amusing.

When i say everything i mean everything that actually is.

All natural laws, like the second law of thermodynamics, or newton's law of gravitation, are merely observations based on tons of precedence. You're right that science has definitely proven itself wrong before. Despite that being the case, you aren't being a very good steward of science by claiming that it is okay to deny the validity of well supported theories because you don't agree with their implications. That's the kind of thing intelligent design proponents do.

Heisenberg is just like Shrodinger; it's a principle about what we don't understand yet. It's saying "We don't know yet because...", and then it presents evidence to show why we don't know. I call it a cop out only because it's not the end of the story, and people are acting like it is. We're still studying quantum physics and learning more every day.

Let me edit that in a way that i hope is illustrative.

No idea is self contained- every theory has elements of the unknown in it. That doesn't make a theory inaccurate or invalid. And, i'm sorry will, but i don't think that you're in a position to comment on the impending abandonment of heisenberg.

So tell me what your evidence is for your belief that science can explain everything that's real.

You read my post wrong. The theories themselves, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, are demonstrations of what we don't know. They aren't things we think we do know or think we know, but are things that we don't know. I'll simplify:
Heisenberg - Holy shit, when we tried to measure that outcome it wasn't deterministic. *measures again* See? That's crazy. I wonder if it might be impossible to explain that. I can't explain it right now.... but I'll get right on explaining that.

I've asked that question many times before, yet no one has been able to give me an answer. If you ask "Why?" enough times, you'll eventually come to a point where science says I don't know).

Apparently you missed my dozen answers, including the one to the question you quoted.

All science is an implicit demonstration of what we don't know. Is there anything in the constitutive equation for gravitation that explains the mechanism by which gravity works? No.

f = ma - no explanation there,

These are both descriptions of observed phenomena and neither claims, or even needs to claim, any sort of explanation or underlying mechanism.

Whether one is found or not will remain to be seen.

From what i understand, you're advocating some sort of "hidden variable" which is an idea that has been explored and discredited in the context of heisenberg.

Here is what is going on here will, you disagree with a specific, experimentally supported, scientific theory and instead of bending your perspective to match what science tells you, you are insisting, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, on the existence of some completely unsubstantiated mechanism to explain why a bunch of quantum physicists don't know what they're talking about. You are doing exactly what you argue against when it comes to theists.

Science is not a demonstration of what we don't know. Science is about figuring out what we do know. It's about facts and truths and how they work. I see no implication in it at all about what we don't know. I see what we don't know as the problem and science as the solution.
As I said above, science is about what we know, not about what we don't know. The reason you're citing Heisenberg is because it's about what we don't know, in a manner of speaking, but it's not that simple. Heisenberg is a demonstration of what isn't the answer. It's saying, "We've applied what we know to test this, but it's not panning out. Stand by." That standing by, or the moment in which we don't have a solution, is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I can't say if it will be solved or not, but the interpretation that Heisenberg suggests there is no solution is a misunderstanding.
Whoa, wait just a second... who said the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was a theory? You know that a principle is very different from a theory, right? If it were a theory or law, this would be a completely different conversation. It's neither. It's a principle.

As long as you guys are picking at nits, I don't think the Heisenberg principle is as general as is being indicated. It's actually something very specific that illustrates the boundaries of scientific knowledge. I'm not ruling out the possibility (likelihood) that you guys know more about this than I do, but since I'm studying this tonight, I can't resist giving in to synchronicity and chiming in. If you know better than I, please speak up - preferably before my exam, which is next week. :lol:

I have no idea what this has to do with atheism, other than it is certainly true that science doesn't provide the explanation to everything. On the other hand, it's more likely that science will provide answers to things like the unified theory, the big bang, and the weak nuclear force than religion or philosophy are. So it's not perfect, but I know where I'm placing my bets.

Laugh I was about to post the same thing.

I was beginning to wonder why the location of an electron or the potential deterministic nature of particle motion had to do with the existence or non-existence of a superior all knowing being who created everything.

Well, it actually has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with what i see as a gross over estimation of the capabilities, a deification if you will, of science on the part of will. When it comes to the existence of god, i think that will and i are in complete agreement.

If I have to prove or disprove the existence of God on my chem exam, it better be multiple choice.

I thought god was covered in geology (6k year old earth) and biology (we evolved from the 6th day or something)....

I think the point of the discussion was that filtherton was challenging my assertion that science can explain everything by naming a principle that suggests we have a problem without a current answer. If filtherton is a fraction as exhausted as I am, then we'll agree to disagree for the night and have a Dos Equis. Cheers, bud.

Will, this is actually a pleasant diversion from what i should be doing.

Edit: maybe we should take the night off

Okay. I admit I didn't read all the way down, so I didn't see your response.

No worries.

Precisely. Yet, when the end of the "and-so-ons" are reached, regardless of how many, what is there? What precipitated the first iteration? going with the assumption that there was a beginning.

But God can not answer that question, because in so doing it creates a bigger question.

When I was a good little Catholic I was told that God made his own mold and threw it away.

Even as a young child that struck me as stupid, and you can imagine how I felt when my mother tried to teach me Papal Infallibility when I was about 9.

But I digress, anyways, nothing -> something, seems just a concept outside of our experiences and knowledge. Nothing just appears without something leading to it, but.... nothing -> omnipotent being -> everything, makes nothing -> something seem pretty straight forward.

There is no necessary limit. We as humans live finite existences so we feel the need to compare everything to that. There's really no evidence to suggest there was a beginning.

Let me put it in a theistic framework: when you die, I suspect you expect to go to heaven. If you're a member of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism/Christianity/Islam, you'll expect to be there for eternity. So you must grasp the concept as it's a part of your faith and religion. You never cease to be, and continue on forever; to infinity. Well, imagine the inverse of that. Imagine that there is not only an eternity in front of you, but also behind you. Going back continues on forever, without end.