Red Dust
January 1st, 2007 by 
drunkentune
In comment #44 of the short post Me Arguing With No One In Particular, Dave Armstrong asserted several things about many atheists. To form a comprehensive and linear argument, I have moved his first assertion back a bit, but will cover it in time. My original comments are italicized, and at the end, I provide more perplexing claims by Dave Armstrong. I’ve had to scour my old textbooks, and borrow another from the library to come up with a comprehensive answer that I think and hope will satisfy Dave Armstrong’s search for the truth.
May philaletheia on all sides be reached in time.
Assertion 2:
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that the universe can create itself.
Your use of language reveals a good deal. The universe didn’t create itself. No atheist I know believes that, and I certainly don’t believe that too. Just two months ago the theory of an oscillating universe, contracting and expanding, was given a boost after the background radiation of the universe was observed. I forget if they did or did not, but they may have won a Nobel Prize in astrophysics for their work. The verdict’s still out on the origins of the universe, but I don’t see how the faith you describe comes into play when we’re measuring dark matter and proposing different theories…
In 1919, Edwin Powell Hubble noticed the red shift: the farther away the galaxy was from Earth, the more the light emitted was shifted appreciably toward the red end of the spectrum. This is known as Hubble’s Law.
What his most exiting contribution was, though, his explanation of this occurrence. His conclusion changes everything, that if the red-shift of a galaxy’s spectrum increased in proportion to the distance from Earth, the farther away the galaxy, the faster it was moving.
If tomorrow the distance between galaxies has increased, then it stands to reason that yesterday they were closer together, and sometime in the distant past all the matter in the universe was compacted together in an area of small volume and extremely high density. Thus, the theory of the Big Bang was born.
In 1965, Penzias and Wilson, working for Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, detected faint microwave background radiation pervading the universe in all directions. This was the electromagnetic corpse of the Big Bang, and was a powerful independent substantiation of Hubble’s theory of an expanding universe.
In 1992, NASA’s COBE satellite recorded asymmetry in the background radiation. This asymmetry is necessary to explain why matter in the universe is not equally distributed. Thus, an additional conformation of the Big Bang theory was uncovered.
Even before Hubble’s observations, Einstein’s original equations for general relativity predicted an expanding universe. The popular belief at the time was that the universe was more or less static, and Einstein attempted to explain away cosmic expansion with an arbitrary ‘cosmological constant’. He later described this as ‘the biggest blunder of my life’.
In response to Assertion 2: I do not have any faith that the universe created itself, because I do not believe that the universe as we know it created itself. Science today can answer what occurred in the pre-Big Bang universe, and there certainly was no ‘creation’ afoot. The universe has always existed. My reasons for thinking so are explained below.
Assertion 1:
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that something can come from nothing.
What are you saying here? Can you rephrase this? I don’t believe that something can come from nothing, so I think you may either be confused with what atheists actually believe, or are misrepresenting the current scientific literature’s conclusions…
There are physical laws to how the universe operates. Now, when I say ‘physical law’, I really mean that it is a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. They are subject to further revision – or even outright rebuttal; however, it is about consistent behavior. There is no lawgiver to the physical laws; they describe how the universe operates. The long-established physical law I refer to is law of the conservation of mass-energy.
A quick overview: the law of the conservation of mass states that mass cannot be created or destroyed, but can change from one form of matter to another; the law of the conservation of energy is essentially the same, but difficult to visualize: energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form of energy to another.
The French scientist Antoine Henri Becquerel was studying uranium, and energy seemed to appear out of nowhere, while uranium mass seemed to simultaneously disappear. That is natural radioactivity. Einstein proved that mass from radioactive elements does not disappear, and the energy does not arise ex nihilo. Energy and mass are, in reality, the same thing expressed by nature in two different ways. Thus was formed the law of the conservation of mass-energy: mass may be changed into energy, and energy may be changed into mass. Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed: the amount of mass-energy remains constant. There have been numerous careful empirical observations confirming the law of the conservation of mass-energy. Unless the law of the conservation of mass-energy is shown to be at fault, we are obligated to accept its description.
In response to Assertion 1: I have no faith that ’something can come from nothing’; on the contrary, something (mass-energy) cannot come from nothing, and the converse holds true as well: nothing cannot come from something (mass-energy), or more appropriately, as seen below: mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Dr. Stephen Hawking has expanded our understanding of mass-energy’s bizarre properties, and how these properties may explain the origin of the universe. There is a naturally occurring phenomenon known as ‘vacuum fluctuation,’ where matter is created out of what appears to be empty space. Even in a perfect vacuum, where traditionally-understood matter and energy are absent, electromagnetic oscillations take place. This is called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in harmony with mass-conversation law. In other words? The ‘nothingness’ of a vacuum can spontaneously produce matter in agreement with Einstein’s established laws.
[Ed note: here is some background on zero-state theory, which helps clarify vacuum fluctuation energy.]
Cosmologists have described how matter can appear out of apparently empty space. Matter may spontaniously appear in one of two ways: from a preexisting energy field, or from quite literally, nothing. The latter appearace of matter is explained by zero-state theory. This does not violate the mass-energy conservation law because matter produced this way is composed equally of positive and negative energy: positive energy is the material object and negative energy is the generation of its gravitational field. Both forms of energy cancel each other out, resulting in a ‘zero state’. This way, the entire universe may have a sum total of zero energy.
The concluding response to Assertion 2: If mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is composed of mass-energy, then the universe has always existed in one form or another. It may have existed as an empty oscillating vacuum or an infinitely dense theoretical point known as a singularity, of no volume whatsoever.
Assertion 3:
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that science provides the only possible reliable knowledge to be had.
Science engages in practical naturalism. We cannot test for the existence or nonexistence of God, the supernatural, or all sorts of quackery. In fact, why should we even want to do such a thing[?] … I have never claimed that science is the only possible way to gain knowledge. There may be other ways. But first, you must show me why there are other ways to discover the truth. Demonstrate how we can use supernaturalism to discover the truth. (Comment #68)
No scientist (‘practical’ naturalists all) holds this to be true, and I certainly do not hold this position, being a naturalist.
[E]xcept for humans, philosophical naturalists understand nature to be fundamentally mindless and purposeless. . . . Of course, this doesn’t eliminate the possibility of supernatural mind and purpose in nature; the only requirement would be the demonstration of its existence and mechanism, which is up to the supernaturalist to provide. We are still waiting. (Schafersman, “What Is Science?†in “Naturalism Is an Essential Part of Science.â€)
Let the naturalist prove [says the challenger] . . . that there can be no other kind of knowledge, that there can be none but empirical fact! And unless he can prove it, he is a question-begging a priorist. . . .
But here, too, the naturalist need undertake to do no such thing. Is there a different kind of knowledge that makes . . . [the supernatural] an accessible object of knowledge in a manner inaccessible by the only reliable method we have so far successfully employed to establish truths about other facts? Are there other than empirical facts, say spiritual or transcendent facts? Show them to us. . . .
Is there a method discontinuous with that of rational empirical method which will give us conclusions about what exists on earth or heaven, if there be such a place, concerning which all qualified inquirers agree? Tell us about it. (Sidney Hook, The Quest for Being, pp. 173–174.)
The naturalist, without making any metaphysical claims over and above science, can demand supernaturalists the method that legitimizes their metaphysical claims. In the absence of such a method, naturalists such as I can not only justifiably refuse such claims, but can deny—tentatively, not categorically—the existence of the supernatural, and for the same reason they deny the existence of lesser supernatural entities like fairies and ghosts: the absence of evidence.
Assertion 4:
It takes a ton of faith (much more than a Christian exercises) to believe that only matter exists and there is no spirit. Even Albert Einstein denied that.
How do you see this? I don’t see evidence for the existence of the spirit, so why is it a matter of faith to not believe? We can test for matter; we can’t test for the spirit, whatever it is. I don’t even know what you mean when you say “spiritâ€, so could you define it for me?
Demonstrate to me that there exists more than ‘matter [, energy, and mass-energy]’, and I will believe it. Demonstrate to a naturalist such as I that the ‘spirit’ exists, and I will believe it.
Some people believe that they will be conscious a thousand years after their deaths, but do not simultaneously believe that they were conscious a thousand years prior to their births.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. (Albert Einstein, the New York Times, April 19, 1955)
Atheists are almost always unwilling to take a close look at their first premises. I suppose I would be the same if I were an atheist, because there is nothing there.
Your questions aren’t talking about ‘first premises’, only scientific theories. I have answered the questions as far as I understand them, and am willing to answer more. All it took was a minute to rummage through my old textbooks and a trip to the public library to answer your questions, along with choice quotations from early nineteenth-century naturalists.
So you are claiming that you have airtight premises and axioms all down the line, that require no inductive leaps or speculations. No gaps of knowledge are present. It is all utterly demonstrated and cannot be disproven? Fascinating indeed! Are you really that philosophically naive? I wouldn’t have guessed such.
Blind faith? There is plenty in atheism. There are many faith-assumptions and axioms, just as in Christianity. The difference is that we honestly admit that we have faith and can’t and don’t know everything there is to know about reality. … But most atheists are unwilling to admit that they accept any tenets or presuppositions that involve any leaps of faith or unproven assumptions. This is itself irrational, and philosophically naive.
I have premises, and have on several occasions explained my premises for morality and reality in the comments sections here at Philaletheia: I assume others feel pain, and are not automatons. In other words, I assume that the universe I subjectively observe (for example, I see people talk to me) exists objectively (as in, people talk to me). It should be pointed out that I could hallucinate, be dreaming, or be a brain in a vat. I assume that I am not hallucinating, am not dreaming, and am not a brain in a vat.
I understand that the map is not the territory, but all I have is the map, so I assume that the map is as exact as can be, a ~1:1 ratio. The world may be ‘red dust’, the Buddhist concept that the world is nothing more than an illusion, setting traps, pain and suffering - the historical antecedent of the ‘brain in the vat’ conundrum. I don’t know if it is or isn’t - I’m a strict agnostic on the subject of dust - but I’ll stick with my assumptions, which lie close to Lao-tse: rather than reject the world as an illusion, one should ‘join the dust of the world’.
Posted in atheism, epistemology, naturalism | 
January 3rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
Dave is too busy chuckin’ a hissy fit on his blog to comment here I suspect.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I don’t think he’s chucking a hissy fit so much as he is disengaging from the conversation– which I have also had to do a few times on this blog and for the same reasons: an unwillingness to listen and to respond to what is actually written.
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
science has the fact but not certainty.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:27 am
ben & beepbeep,
I wouldn’t call it ‘disengaging’ when someone calls you ‘[a] pompous, condescending ass’ [*], or a ‘hissy fit’; I call that an insult on my character.
It sounds to me like he’s trying to pick a fight, so I responded here by answering his questions calmly above, and on my personal blog with a critique of his last words.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Re drunken
I agree that he seems to want a fight. Fights are so boring I think, as all that is required is the ability to be an abject pr**k.
If it comes down to a slanging match no one learns anything except perhaps new ways to insult each other. And I am not sure that I need to learn new ways to be insulting.
I think the reality may be that for some people, the questioning of the existence of their god and/or their god belief, IS an insult in and of itself.
They may be slowly stewing away because someone dared to question their belief system, until the lid on the pot lifts off and they lose the plot.
We are not so far away, historically, from a time when to question either the existence of god, or god belief was a capital offence. People still get testy if you question a belief system which is so culturally and politically ingrained. They more than likely see it as a direct assault and a directly insulting to them.
Having said that, I have the sneaking suspicion that the world is full of religious believers of all kinds who would like their particular brand of religion to go unchallenged. In fact, they would go so far as to demand that according to law.
Religion appears to be the last belief system in which its adherents require and sometimes demand exemption from scrutiny and criticism.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:42 am
beepbeep:
You paint an accurate picture of some of us believers, but not all of us, I hope.
I’m not sure religion is the last such system. Any system can fall into this trap when it perceives its dominance and begins to “feel its oats”, so to speak. I’ve done a lot of multicultural work and I think race and culture have the same potential. Ethnocentrism is still alive and well in the world. Americanism and other forms of nationalism can also reach this point as well as economic theories such as capitalism. Arguably, the majority of American-perpetrated assassinations over the last few decades have been against people of differing economic theories.
For me the problem is hardly Christianity itself (but I cannot speak for all religions), but rather Christendom — the culture that has arisen from the faithful (what some are calling Christianism). We thought we once ruled the world by forging together state and church. The power got to us like it got to many other before us and before long became a mandate and theology of injustice. Now the empire has fallen, some because of the rediscovery of it’s own values, but some wish for its return. I do not. And many other believers join me. A new poll of Americans found that 73% believe in a specific, personal God, but less than 50% want to erode the divide between church and state. While the balance might not be a majority, it is significant.
Why would I join this group? Because dominance is about taking power, but I dream of faith rediscovering the meaning of giving power. Taking power can only lead to evil.
I am here to listen to scrutiny and criticism, but more than that, to listen to many quests for truth. So while it might be fair to say there is a trend to absolutism and defensiveness among the religious, it is by no means universal. In fact, there are many that I know who believe faith is not legitimate unless it lives under the tension of scrutiny of some kind.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:25 am
drunkentune:
It has occured to me lately that the narrative of Creation has so formed our cultural understanding and language that almost all the current conversation is in reference to those ideas. For example: I was having a conversation with two people, both life long believers, talking about the origins of the universe. They pointed out the idea that “something can’t come from nothing”. I said that I didn’t think many people these days say that. Most agree that something must be eternal (or close to it): either God or the universe (mass-energy). So either the universe always was, or the universe came out of God who always was.
They seemed to have trouble getting the universe as eternal. After going around on several objections, I realized that the problem was they were could only think in the narrative frame of Creation and it didn’t make sense to them since, if you only have the universe, there is a big hole where the creator should be standing. Since the universe comes out of God in that narrative, when God was removed, they saw the universe creating itself, which was silly. It think that’s why when an atheist says God didn’t create the world, for most believers, the default is then, “well, then you’re saying the universe created itself.”
I see all truth-seeking as occuring in at least one matrix. For example, naturalism occurs in the matrix of the natural sciences and secondarily in a certain psychosocial matrix. I think since this is true, shifting the matrix means shifting the possible sources of truth. I say this because there seems to be a lot of either/or thinking about truth sources, when I think it should be more both/and. You would likely agree with this, but might not agree that all the sources I use are valid. If truth comes from many sources in several matrices, to put them against each other does not work, I think, nor is it profitable. But that doesn’t mean they can’t converse. For example, most of my truth-seeking occurs in human relationships and I use my faith to guide me in those since many of them are very difficult. The natural sciences, while fascinating to me and lovely, do not hold much truth for me to apply to these situations, but still I try to maintain a conversation between the two.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Saying “something can come from nothing” as the atheist position is not the best way to put it. Rather, the thought is that matter is eternal and can produce everything there is. That is what my argument was in my paper on “Deo-Atomism.”
What I was driving at was the notion of the materialist atheist that matter can do everything there is to do in this universe, and has, in fact, achieved all by itself what we see in the universe. This puts matter very much in the place that we Christians put God (hence my vastly-misunderstood satire about atheists believing in trillions of “atom-gods”).
Therefore (so I contended), the atheist is every bit as religious as we are; probably even more so). He exercises every bit as much faith: probably more so.
There is no proof that matter is eternal, according to present scientific understanding (e.g., the laws of thermodynamics), and much indication that it is not.
No theory of an “oscillating universe” has been proven (or arguably can be proven) according to present understanding. To do so would require “meta-science” (essentially and literally, metaphysics), and since that is supposedly impermissible for the Christian to do, why should it be permissible for the materialist? Another double standard . . .
All they are, are bald theories, based on little more than wishful thinking and the desire to avoid any hint of “creationist” understanding (even in the broadest sense of any kind of minimalist theistic evolutionism, such as that held by Kenneth Miller), or metaphysical non-materialism.
It’s faith; it’s acceptance of the unproven (perhaps unprovable in this case) axiom.
This is virtually my entire point in the recent pathetic, “can never get to [the epistemological] first base with the atheist” exchanges.
January 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
The Wikipedia article on “Ultimate fate of the universe”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
provides an overview of the atheist conundrum:
“Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes dilute entropy accumulated in the previous cycle.
Multiverse: no complete end
The Multiverse (or parallel universe in the singular case) scenario states that while our universe may be of finite duration, it is but one universe among many. Moreover, the physics of the multiverse may permit it to exist indefinitely. In particular, other universes may be subject to physical laws differing from those that apply in our own universe.”
BINGO! To posit this, one must theorize about other universes with different physical / natural laws than ours. But to do that is precisely to speculate outside of present-day science. So it becomes pure metaphysics and non-scientific speculation.
How, then, is it any fundamentally different from Christians talking about God, Whose qualities are also outside of present-day scientific knowledge or purview?
There is no difference. Both sides must engage in technically non-scientific metaphysical philosophy in order to have these opinions. The Christian freely admits that there can be a non-scientific knowledge, even pertaining to physical things. The materialist atheist will not acknowledge this, and so is subject to a perpetual epistemological double standard
and vicious circle of reasoning.
The non-materialist atheist, such as David Chalmers, does not exercise a double standard, because he admits that there are things that cannot be adequately explained by science, and that there may therefore be non-material entities that must be accounted for, whether there is a God or not.
I have no problem with that; I have a problem with unsubstantiated dogma and unproven premises masquerading as proven or ultra-respectable science, whe it is neither science nor “respectable” (if by that we mean substantiated and proven or having any scientific, empirical evidence for itself at all).
January 4th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I have read Daves dialogue and I have read yours and I think you miss the small point Dave is trying to make in regards to “faith” in science. Additionally I have a follow up opinion of my own.
I believe the essence of the issue is that it is difficult to comprehend with finite minds something that has always existed. i.e. God. I find it interesting to hear from an athiest perspective a similar form of “faith”. i.e. The universe has always existed.
Your information in Red Dust is indeed intriguing. To me on more than one platform. First it is very solid in a strict materialistic scientific sense in explaining the origins of the universe. One so that if you had absolute undeniable solid empirical evidence verifying it, it would not shake my faith.
Here is why:
First and foremost from an atheist perspective you would have to either (consciously or subconsciously) accept that life and the universes origins are part of a great big cosmic “accident” so to speak.
Narrowing the focus I shall use evolution as an example. That simple micro-organisms over the expansion of time developed into complex creatures in a world that would also have to be simulataneoulsy developing(plants versus animals etc.), all coming together in perfect harmony. Each would grow into development with each other all the while over billions and billions of years and maintain “perfect” order and support with each other without any form of a guiding hand. Basically maintaining a consistent balance for their time frames of existance.
It takes in my opinion an exhorbitant amount of faith that over the course of Billions of years chance just so happened to play out right every time…including “species that just couldn’t hack it.” (There had to have been something for a time that maintained them if even for a short while in the grand scheme of things.) Does it not require faith to accept this?
That we are mere pawns of chance? Or was their a creator involved?
There are a great deal of competing scientific theories as to the origins of the universe. Naturally I happen to accept creation foremost as one of them. In your post you speak of a vaccuum existing prior to the universe today as we know it. This is consistent to me with Genesis in which we are told in some respects of such a void in the beginning.
As difficult as I know you may find it to fathom yourself I hold to faith that God created the universe, end of story. However, as human beings are naturally curious and strive to learn. My fascination points more toward “How did God create the universe?” My present answer really amounts to: insert theory here.
Why is that you say? Pointing back to the argument at hand it takes faith to accept either perspective. Whether you think we arrived by chance or we arrived by God’s intent you cannot begin to prove. What you can attempt to prove is the means by which we arrived. Science to me is the explanation of things God has already set into motion. From the Laws of Gravity to the Law of Thermodynamics etc.
I haven’t personally accepted any one scientific explanation
be it young earth creation, evolution, or the many variants in between, evidence has been pruported by all in their fields. It doesn’t necessarily matter when it comes to approaching the existence of God. I find plenty of evidence elsewhere to support this view. It is not necessary for me to have this evidence but certainly the more one obtains the more resolute one is in their. convictions. If I seek it it is for the benefit of others. My mind is already made up. I take Christ at His word when He speaks “…blessed is He who believes and has not seen”. (John 20:24-29)
I may be called stupid (amongst other names and descriptions) for this but you first have to recognize that their are more intellectual processes that developes ones own opinion and belief structure than science.
It may be asked then why the Christian religeon over others? This is the realm by which you can find more empircal evidences for. Take the Bible for instance. Historically, archaeologically, and at many times scientifically has been proven time and again. This even includes some miracles. Examples being the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, and I even read once of a theory surrounding how time even stood still for a day (though I would have to dig for this one if asked). Square one we have a reliable document.
We have written testimonies and witnesses of Christs life. Digging around you can find the evidence of truth to these testimonies. One need only appeal to archaeology and history. Square two we have reliable sources for these documents.
Moral and ethical soundness of Christian teaching is far superior than can be found elsewhere. Never mind the guy who says he is a Christian but gets drunk every night and sleeps around. His actions only demonstrate a fallen human nature as opposed to what Christianity teaches. I hear all too often of the “evils” religeon (particularly Christianity) has provided the world. Once again this is more of an appeal to human nature than Christian dogma. If one goes by that road then we need only look at North Korea to see the “evils of Atheism”. We could look at the governments of Stalin and Adolf Hitler and the mass attrocities committed under these and similar atheistic regimes. At least the Christian has a set standard by which he is to live his life. The athiest in his moral relativism does not. So can we now say that unbelief is the scourge of the world? Whether a proclaimed Christian, other religeonist, or athiest is involved the problems ultimately lie in lack of adherence to God’s direction. No more sterling example of this can be found than in those who followed His will. I reccommend reading about the Catholic saints for this best demonstrates one who has Christ in His life. The witness the lives of the Saints bring is testimony to the trueness of God’s word and Revelation.
In closing emperical evidence to the truth of Christianity is available. By deducing the trueness of Christinaity it follows that indeed a God exists and therefore we have our Creator. Now it is simply a matter of sating that curiosity of lifes beginnings by posing, “How did God do it?”
My arguments have been presented in a more simplistic form in order for anyone reading can understand the gist of what I am getting at. I can expound on them more intellectually if need be. You may not even accept any of this as evidence but you need only test it to find the truth. If anything I hope to establish is that you can not by any means rule out the possibility of God. To do so takes its own special kind of faith. Do you know for sure He’s not real? The possibilities my friend indeed are endless and the potential consequences eternal…
January 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The currently fashionable theory (post-”oscillating universe”) is the cyclic model, proposed in 2001 by Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University.
Let’s briefly take a look at this and see if it illustrates what I have been contending about the relationship of metaphysics and science, and science and Christianity (more generally speaking):
Here is Steinhardt’s home page:
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/
And now I cite Steinhardt’s and Turok’s paper, “The Cyclic Model Simplified”:
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf
“. . . the big bang/in
ationary picture is still reeling from the recent shock that most of the universe consists of dark energy. The concept had been that, once conditions are set in the early universe, the rest of cosmic evolution is simple. Dark energy has shattered that dream. Dark energy was not anticipated and plays no significant role in
the theory. Observations have forced us to add dark energy ad hoc.” (p. 2)
[and what is this “dark energy”? They admit we don’t know much about it]:
“Observable particles { quarks, leptons, photons, neutrinos, etc. { lie on one brane and are
constrained to move along it. Any particles lying on the other brane can interact gravitationally with particles on our brane, but not through strong or electroweak interactions. So, from our perspective, particles on the other brane are a dark form of matter that cannot be detected in laboratories looking for weakly interacting particles.”
(p. 2).
[And does this model imply an infinite series of cycles and no beginning? They think not]:
“Does this mean that the cycling has no beginning? This issue is not settled at present]. We have noted that the cyclic model has the causal structure of an expanding de Sitter space with bounces occurring on at spatial slices. For de Sitter space, the expanding phase is geodesically incomplete, so the cyclic picture cannot be the whole story. The most likely story is that cycling was preceded by some singular beginning.” (p. 5)
[But what exactly is “dark matter” and “dark energy”?]
Wikipedia: “Dark Energy”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
“The most recent WMAP observations are consistent with a Universe made up of 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% ordinary matter.
Nature of dark energy
“As this NASA chart indicates, roughly 70 percent or more of the universe consists of dark energy, about which we know next to nothing.
“The exact nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense—roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter—it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory (but see the references for a claimed detection). Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 70% of all energy, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant.
“The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum.”
[hardly distinguishable from what theists call “spirit”; seems to me, on my layman’s level]
“. . . Alternatively, dark energy might arise from the particle-like excitations in some type of dynamical field, referred to as quintessence. Quintessence differs from the cosmological constant in that it can vary in space and time. In order for it not to clump and form structure like matter, it must be very light so that it has a large Compton wavelength.
“No evidence of quintessence is yet available, but it has not been ruled out either.”
[sounds a lot like light: where it isn’t clear whether it is matter or not]
Scientists hardly know what “dark energy” is, according to Mario Livio, of the Space Telescope Science Institute: “”Understanding the nature of dark energy is arguably the biggest problem physics is facing today.”
(”Mysterious force’s long presence”, BBC News, 16 November 2006)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6156110.stm
Now it may very well be that these things will be understood in the not-too-distant future. Physics and astronomy are progressing very rapidly. It is an exciting time for cosmology: almost a Golden Age.
My point is (as always) not “anti-science” but rather, “anti-excessive dogmatism and creating of double standards in materialistic science.”
In any event, the current ignorance about dark matter and dark energy is expressed in the Wikipedia article on the former:
“he composition of dark matter is unknown, but may include new elementary particles such as WIMPs and axions, ordinary and heavy neutrinos, dwarf stars and planets collectively called MACHOs, and clouds of nonluminous gas. Current evidence favors models in which the primary component of dark matter is new elementary particles, collectively called non-baryonic dark matter . . . Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names “dark matter” and “dark energy” serve mainly as expressions of our ignorance, much as the marking of early maps with terra incognita.”
Science and Theology News (1-1-03) offers a fascinating glimpse on the interchange between science and theology on this question of cosmology:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:y7Zc3OJP61UJ:www.stnews.org/News-1415.htm+universe+eternal+beginning+infinite&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15
“Chaotic inflation, an extension of Guths theory by Stanford cosmologist Andrei Linde, argues the universe had an infinite past and therefore did not have an unexplained and uncaused beginning in the big bang, said Quentin Smith, a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Mich.
Challenging the fuzzy yet comforting idea that the universe has always existed in one form or another, Vilenkin, Borde and Guth have proven that Lindes argument was false and Linde has conceded their proof is correct, Smith said.
By dispensing with the notion of an infinite past filled with inflationary cycles ending in big bangs, Guth and colleagues have left physicists staring into a void filled with new possibilities. They are forcing science to confront the most counter-intuitive puzzle of all: how something, especially something as vast as the universe, could possibly have been created from nothing.”
[Something from nothing????!!!!! I thought this was simply a Christian caricature of atheist cosmology????!!!! At least one cosmologist cited: Jaume Garriga, of the University of Barcelona. comes right out and says this: “A creator is not necessary, Garriga agrees.The universe itself can be born out of nothing due to a quantum fluctuation, after which it starts inflating, he explained.”]
[Other instances of the “something from nothing” motif]:
“What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing. Don’t let the cosomologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. “In the beginning,” they will say, “there was nothing - no time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ….” Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats”
(David Darling, “On creating something from nothingâ€, New Scientist, 151 (2047), (1996), p 49)
“Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.”
(Arno Penzias, quoted by Walter Bradley in The Designed ‘Just-so’ Universe, 1999)
The ultimate incoherence of Stephen Hawking’s theories on the origin of the universe are manifest on p. 139 of his famous book, A Brief History of Time (Bantam trade paper edition, 1990):
““When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities … . In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries . . . scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our observations: it exists only in our minds. So it is meaningless to ask: Which is real, ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’ time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.”
Alan Guth stated:
“Start out with no universe at all - absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness does not equal empty space, because according to general relativity, space is already stuff… Start out with no space, no time, no nothing. Then you make a quantum transition ….”
(lecture at the “Nature of nature” conference, Baylor Univ. 1999)
The Cambridge University page on “Quantum Cosmology”
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html
provides the same notion:
“In 1983, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle developed a theory of quantum cosmology which has become known as the `No Boundary Proposal’. Recall that the path integral involves a sum over four dimensional geometries that have boundaries matching onto the initial and final three geometries. The Hartle-Hawking proposal is to simply do away with the initial three geometry i.e. to only include four dimensional geometries that match onto the final three geometry. The path integral is interpreted as giving the probability of a universe with certain properties (i.e. those of the boundary three geometry) being created from nothing . . . Universe creation is not something that takes place inside some bigger spacetime arena - the instanton describes the spontaneous appearance of a universe from literally nothing.”
The “Naked Scientists” Radio Show and Podcast:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/shows/2005.11.27.htm
states the same:
“Well it’s thought that most of the matter we have in the universe today did come from nothing. By nothing, I mean the vacuum. There is a favoured mechanism for creating the matter that fills our universe, and this is the convergence of the energy density of the vacuum. In simple terms, one would think of this as nothing, or no material, into matter. So in many ways, everything we see did come from nothing. The way energy density is converted into matter is quite complicated, but it’s thought that that’s how it occurred, through inflation.”
Atheist Quentin Smith wrote in “Simplicity and Why the Universe Exists” (Philosophy 71 (1997): 125-32:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/simplicity.html
“A defender of theism may respond that we (with our finite intellects) are not in a position to know if the creation of a singularity is a rational or irrational way to create an animate universe. Although a sceptical position such as this threatens any claim to knowledge in the philosophy of religion, it has been advanced by Daniel Lorca in a recent article in this journal. Lorca’s position is that the atheist and theist positions are evidentially indeterminate; specifically, the ‘Big Bang Cosmological evidence is such that either position is equally probable since we just do not have enough information to show which position is stronger.’”
Lorca’s position on this is essentially my own. His article is “A Critique of Quentin Smith’s Atheistic Argument from Big Bang Cosmology”, Philosophy 70 (1995): 48.
Smith, rather remarkably, responds to the argument by adoipting a sort of “Occam’s Razor” plea for simplicity-as-more likely and probable-truth, and again appeals to “something from nothing”:
“The Law of the Simplest Beginning says that the simplest possible thing, the big bang singularity, comes into existence in the simplest possible way. The simplest possible way for something to come into existence is for the thing’s coming into existence to have no positive relations to and grounds for coming into existence. The simplest possible way to come into existence is to come to exist from nothing (from no previously existent material, no material cause), to come to exist by nothing (by no efficient cause) and to come to exist for nothing (for no purpose or final cause). If the Law of the Simplest Beginning is true, then the big bang singularity occurs without being caused by God.”
(bolded emphases added; italics in original)
When all is said and done, I continue to maintain (and nothing I have seen in all my presentations contradicts it), that the atheist positions on the origin of the present universe require every bit as much faith and lack as much proof as the simnple Christian belief that “God created.”
The atheist can’
t prove by present-day science that God did not create, and he can’t prove that the universe always existed or that it created itself. Metaphysics is inevitably involved, and epistemologically, that is scarcely different from sheer religious faith.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I understand Dave Armstrong’s desire to discontinue our communication, and I respect that; however, the assertion he gives, that,
is currently unsourced, so I wish to read his sources. The laws of thermodynamics, as I read them, do not violate the law of conservation of mass-energy.
As the first law of thermodynamics states, In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant.
I wish to correct my statement. After reading up on the hypothesis, I see that it has been revised to the Cyclic model hypothesis, which, if correct, explains the cosmological constant. It is interesting to note that the previous theory of an oscillating universe was invalidated when evidence contradicted the theory; I cannot fathom evidence that would falsify the existence of a god. When Dave Armstrong says, ‘It’s faith; it’s acceptance of the unproven (perhaps unprovable in this case) axiom,’ that’s simply not true.
As an aside, the two physicists I mentioned did win the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2006, “for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation“, which provides more evidence of the Big Bang theory’s validity.
A straw man.
“I have never claimed that science is the only possible way to gain knowledge. There may be other ways. But first, you must show me why there are other ways to discover the truth. Demonstrate how we can use supernaturalism to discover the truth. … No scientist (‘practical’ naturalists all) holds [’that science provides the only possible reliable knowledge to be had’] to be true, and I certainly do not hold this position, being a naturalist. (Assertion 3, Red Dust)”
No one can prove or disprove that a supernatural entity was a first cause of the universe (essentially, that God created the universe), other than the begged question: ‘What caused God?’ or ‘What created God?’
Some argue that the universally applied ‘Law of Cause-Effect’ is evidence for God’s creation/first cause, but the ecclesiastical argument - that God has always existed - contradicts the premise of the First Cause argument - that the ‘Law of Cause-Effect’ can be consistently applied. Perhaps there are decent philosophical and theological arguments for the Christian god being a first cause, or for creating the universe; however, these arguments are not scientific, and remain strictly in the domains of philosophy and theology. Even if new evidence revealed tomorrow pointed to the existence of the supernatural, or the supernatural origins of the universe, that does not mean that the Christian god was the perpetrator.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Jonathan:
Like you, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence at this time to rule out the possibility of God. However, I disagree that Christianity enjoys a clear superiority over other religions in terms of historical authenticity or morals/ethics. Please read the following comment thread, where Ed Lynam made similar claims:
http://philaletheia.thetruthtree.com/2006/12/18/the-ethics-of-pleasure/#comments
January 4th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Jonathan,
Thank you for your comment, and Benny, thank you for showing Jonathan our conversation with Ed Lynam.
I’m not sure I would use the word ‘accident’ in this case. This morning I poured a bowl of cereal, and accidentally spilled milk on the table. Now, the word ‘accident’ implies to me that there was a purpose that was thwarted, or that there was a mistake or error. In the case of spilled milk, there was an error of a jarred elbow.
If, instead, we said that the beginning of the universe was not an ‘accident’, but a ‘result’, then this use of language pulls this out of making a subjective statement on the origins of the universe. An ‘accident’ may initially terrify and sadden many: who wants to be the result of an accident? I sure don’t!
Again, the use of language in this case may influence our conclusions. If ‘equilibrium’ replaced ‘perfect harmony’, then it is a bit less partisan. Over 99% of species on planet Earth have gone extinct, so it is fair to say that over the long run, ‘perfect harmony’ routinely breaks down. The environment is not static over a long timeframe, but is ever changing. Meteorites strike the Earth, Ice Ages approach and recede across entire continents, deserts expand, etc. The ‘equilibrium’ of species is always changing, and the relatively recent expansion of the human race is a perfect example of one species taking over other species that can’t ‘hack it’.
I think you may have a misconception. If there are ‘laws’, there must be a ‘lawgiver’, and this makes sense semantically; however, ‘[t]here are physical laws to how the universe operates. Now, when I say ‘physical law’, I really mean that it is a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. They are subject to further revision – or even outright rebuttal; however, it is about consistent behavior. There is no lawgiver to the physical laws; they describe how the universe operates. (Red Dust)’
While I dispute your claims, there is little I can do either for or against your words, since you have only asserted that these things are true. Jonathan, is it possible for you to ‘dig for this one’, and other information?
By a literal interpretation of the Bible, the worldwide deluge occurred in 2348 B.C. For the sake of argument, let’s say we have a grace period of 2000-2500 B.C., or five hundred years.
Now, it is a fact that the Tigris-Euphrates Valley Civilization (Middle East), the Nile Valley Civilization (Egypt), and the Agean Civilization (Greece) have records that are uninterrupted before, throughout, and after 2348 B.C., and each continue to record history without interruption or mention of a worldwide flood from 2000-2500 B.C. As an atheist and skeptic, I simply don’t see evidence for a worldwide flood. If there is evidence, I wish to see it.
I haven’t heard time standing still for a day, but is it perhaps the urban legend of ‘the lost day‘?
January 4th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
soulster,
I enjoyed reading your examples. I too find that many people - be them atheists, Christians, deists or Taoists - have a poor grasp of logic. Perhaps, as creators of tools and literally, creators of offspring, we see creation everywhere?
Of course, but I find it admirable that you recognize this. What interests me is what atheists/naturalists consider valid, versus what Christians as a whole (although, difficult to come to a single voice for Christians) consider valid.
January 4th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Strawman - Atheists do not say that everything came from nothing.
January 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
drunkentune:
I share your interest. I think someone reading this blog could get a feel from the posts and comments about the difference, but I wonder if there is something we could do to draw this out further. I’ll think about it…
beepbeep:
Wouldn’t it be right to say that atheists do not believe any particular thing about the origin of the universe since atheism is simply a denial of the idea of the divine? Then we might expect some people who happen to be atheists in several theoretical camps. Some of these might think the universe came from nothing, some who are undecided or who could care less, and some who think the universe always was. I am meeting more people who are in the latter category. Would you have any idea how prevelent the idea that the universe didn’t come from nothing is among atheists (whether multiverse, occilating, cyclical, or something else)?
January 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am
soulster,
I too think there is a fundamental difference, but I hasten to claim that it is faith that the supernatural exists versus the logical fact that atheists accept that the existence of the supernatural cannot be affirmed or denied.
That seems like too simplistic an argument at first blush, so I’ll be thinking about this too…
As to your comment to beepbeep,
I personally am interested in the origins of the universe, but as I’ve said before, scientists continue to debate the issue; however, I find the discussion similar to Sherlock Holmes’ views on a geocentric universe: the earth could revolve around the sun, or the sun could revolve around the earth, but that has nothing to do with how Holmes lives his life (He says so in The Hound of the Baskervilles. I’m a big Sherlock Holmes fan.). As to me, the origins of the universe may be disputed by scientists, but that has nothing to do with my atheism or presuppositions I may make.
I feel now that presenting the current scientific argument for the origins of the universe in Red Dust may have been a mistake.
January 5th, 2007 at 10:58 am
First and foremost you have to forgive me as I did speak in generalities for the sake of providing a simple overview of my opinions. I shall however expand on this argument.
First and foremost I am sure that there was a better word than accident to explain origins, one better simply didn’t come to mind at the time. I mean accident in the sense of something occuring without any intervention on anothers behalf i.e. not planned. There was no intention to the incident it simply happened…which in some cases could be considered an “accident” I suppose. Poor grammar on my part I admit. I hope this cleared that up. You did say that looking at it as a result then we would have to expound on that. Result of what? And could this result be from intended processes as opposed to a 1:n-teenth chance of probability?
In regards to physical laws I am in total agreeance with your comments. Indeed another grammatical error on my part. I did not intend that such laws as defined by man were set in stone, merely that science is mans way of trying to explain and define those processes God used and has in place…whatever they may be. I keep in mind we are fallible creatures and will sometimes get things wrong hence the revision of such laws from time to time to better explanations.
On the notion of the day standing still (reference to Joshua 10) I had read it from another source (non internet…actually before the internet) quite a few years ago. I was not referring to the urban legend as I knew it was crap. I did however re-research it and even from a scientific perspective from several theories and found it is less credible than what I had long held from previous information. Again a mistake on my part, I did largely speak off the cuff when I wrote my reply and perhaps didn’t use the best examples. Not the best way to dialogue I know.
Certainly it must seem I am off my rocker and not credible to the conversation. But I am humble and willing to admit when I make a mistake. But please don’t count me out yet.
Information about the flood from:
Young earth creation research- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-visit/bartelt4.html
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/
Creation research- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/iceage16.asp
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview4.html
“Secular” research-
I always like to bring in non-Christian scientists/etc. in the fold as well for the sake of fairness and balance. However,
this is not always easy on some topics. I am writing this from work so I will get back to you in this realm.
The Red Sea from a presumably non-biased source: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1992)073%3C0305:ATOEFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
On the notion of clear morality and the thread regarding Ed Lynam I will have to get back with you due to preset lack of time.
I would caution though interpreting the Bible in a strict literal sense. It can be disastrous. Protestants themselves have made quite a few blunders in this regard much to Christendoms humiliation i.e. Scopes monkey trial. Context is very important. Dave has quite a few excellent articles to this regard.
In regards to 99% of species having gone extinct I would need to see some evidence of this. You first have to either know or determine precisely just how many species existed from the beginning and how many currently exist to produce such a percentage. Otherwise it is a made up or presumed figure. It is widely contended that we have not discovered all species currently present (hence the fight for some to preserve the rainforest as a small example) thereby making present day calculaion incomplete. Even more complex would be in determining all species that ever existed as we have neither a full comprehension of the fossil record nor do we know that all species actually became fossilized. The 99% figure relates to me in the same manner as when a problem is found in evolution one simply adds another billion years to the equation implying, “who is to argue with a billion years”?
I would like to note that this is a fascinating debate and as a topic one of my favorties. However, it occured to me that I will not be able to participate for as long as I mihgt need or want to. I will be deploying back to Iraq soon but from now to then I intend to keep up with it. If I should suddenly disappear it is not from running away from the debate. I’m typically a fighter to the bitter end.
January 5th, 2007 at 11:16 am
I almost forgot. The “perfect harmony” I mentioned was in regards to the planets ability to support life in all its forms for any given time period ex: that plants happened to form to support herbivorous animals. The essential support structures that create the “balance” in ecosystems.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Why? I think you were right to clarify what you think about the origin of the universe. It has helped me to hear the majority of this conversation. To say that there are differing theories or differing opinions is no shocker.
The origin of the universe is, I think, somewhat important since it does determine the story we find ourseleves in. Perhaps, Holmes is right that we can continue living without knowing, but if we did know, it might influence how we live as much as General Relativity has, or more.
With regards to whether or not you must have ‘faith’ to hold your view, I’m not sure that is an appropriate word. Do we ‘have faith’ anytime we put up a theory or ‘conceptual marker’ to hold a place of inquiry until we have more data? For example, is it ‘faith’ to believe in dark energy? Or is it ‘faith’ to believe in something I have never directly experienced, like sub-atomic particles?
I don’t know. It think it is something we do as finite beings in the face of uncertainty. It is imaginative explanations and best guesses awaiting more information. And while there is a similar compontent of waiting on more information within faith, that is by no means all of what it means to have faith, or faith at its core. My faith in God is more than a conceptual marker awaiting more data. It is a full-on action plan for life within mystery. It is relational faithfulness to a personal someone I think is very real, but who I am getting to know and will know, at least in this life, incompletely. That, in my opinion, makes faith categorically different than the ways we deal with the uncertainty in science. They have some similarity in places, but I would reserve faith for something more personal and relational which can only really occur between concious entities.
It is enough, in my opinion, to admit the common ground of uncertainty for both the believer and the atheist. Neither know all or even much of what could possibly be known. We are all awaiting data and gathering information. True, believers like me move on what we think is data in the area of theology, but in regards to so much, we are all (believer and non-believer) exploring a largely unknown reality. More often, our quest has unlocked rooms of questions rather than answers, so the adventure continues and likely will indefinitely.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
RE drunken
“As to me, the origins of the universe may be disputed by scientists, but that has nothing to do with my atheism or presuppositions I may make.”
I agree. I simply don’t know many things. But for me, god/gods being the generic cureall answer for everything I don’t know, just doesn’t gel with me.
And frankly, I find the idea of worship, either of people or invisible people, to be quite strange. “Dear invisible person, thank you for not killing me today.” (This comment isn’t meant to be insulting, btw)
As I wouldn’t want to be a leader, so I also wouldn’t want to be lead. I don’t really understand what motivates people to wholely give their lives over to another person, concept or ideology. To me, its like a form of wilfull slavery of mind, body and action.
I baulk at the idea of being a drone for any ideology. (This is probably a case where speaking one’s mind, though not intended to be offensive, is always going to insult someone.)
January 5th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
RE: soulster
“Wouldn’t it be right to say that atheists do not believe any particular thing about the origin of the universe since atheism is simply a denial of the idea of the divine? Then we might expect some people who happen to be atheists in several theoretical camps. Some of these might think the universe came from nothing, some who are undecided or who could care less, and some who think the universe always was. I am meeting more people who are in the latter category. Would you have any idea how prevelent the idea that the universe didn’t come from nothing is among atheists (whether multiverse, occilating, cyclical, or something else)?”
Thank you for the comment.
Firstly, I think that to say that atheists (some, one or all say that something can come from nothing is a misrepresentation of an atheist.)
As essentially an atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of a god/gods as defined by the god concepts which are known. This includes the christian god, the jewish god, the muslim god, the hindu god and all the gods of ancient history.)
So, there might be people who say that something can come from nothing, but frankly, I have never met any of them, nor have I conversed with any of them via the net.
The “atheists believe that something can come from nothing” statement, is to me, a deliberate strawman argument.
I don’t KNOW if something can come from nothing, but I certainly don’t BELIEVE that something comes from nothing.
To me, when theists say that god has always existed (that is, no origin, no beginning and no end) - that seems to be more of a case of something coming from nothing.
How can anything or something have no origin? Of course, I think that the god concepts do have an origin and that their origin in the mind of human beings, but I realize that I am not going to get many believers to accept this.
Secondly, I wouldn’t say that atheism is a denial of the divine. That suggests that the divine is so obviously present that atheists are just being wilfull by saying that they don’t believe in its existence.
There is nothing obvious to me about the divine, or the supernatural, so it isn’t a denial of its “not obvious existence”, but a disbelief in its existence.
I know this is kind of nuanced, but it is a pertinent point when discussing the existence or non-existence of the supernatural with an atheist.
So, I don’t deny the existence of the supernatural as I don’t know if the supernatural exists or not; I just don’t believe that it does. From my reasoning, I would need to be omniscient to know if the supernatural existed and I would need to be omniscient to know that it didn’t exist.
I am not all-knowing, so I don’t know. I just don’t believe that it exists.
I agree that there are a variety of positions available for someone who doesn’t believe the supernatural explanations and you did touch on these.
1. undecided
2. doesn’t care
3. universe always was
My guess, and it is just a guess, not a belief, and not faith, is that the universe, in some form or another may have always existed. This form or forms may have had a variety of origins. They may be self perpetuating origins, I don’t know. What that form or forms have been, or will be, I don’t know.
One thing I do try to avoid though, is anthropomorphising either the universe or any possible cause for it.
I don’t assume that it thinks like me, or that I think like it. I don’t assume that it can think at all. I don’t assume that it has a mind in the sense that human beings recognize the attributes or properties of a mind.
I am simply not convinced that a mind, as we would know it, can exist outside the material world. Theists, of course, base their worldview on the concept that a mind DOES exist outside the material world. That there is a mind that requires no matter with which to function. That it is incorporeal and eternal and they call this mind by various names and believe that it is their duty to worship it or them. Not only is it their duty to worship it, but it is their duty to make everyone worship it. (Replace “it” with your god or gods of preference.)
Now there is a certain amount of awe that non-believers can and do experience when contemplating the universe, but it isn’t the kind of awe or reverence that a theist may feel when contemplating what they believe to be their “god’s creation.”
I can wonder at the mystery and magnitude of the universe without any desire to worship either the universe, or any supposed reason for its existence.
I accept that it is. That it exists and that no supernatural explanation is necessary to explain either its existence or mine.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
beepbeep:
Thanks for the clarifications in language. That should be one objective for the believer, in my opinion. If I wish to become conversent with atheists, it will mean expanding some of my vocabulary. Instead of talking about what an atheist ‘believes’ about a topic, it is more appropriate to talk about what she ‘thinks’ or what her opinion is. Good point. I was thinking along the same lines when I said above to drunkentune that I wouldn’t consider as yet unproven theories of the universe a matter of ‘faith’ just opinion in uncertainty (comment 21).
As far as using the term “denial”, I was a little surprised that it carried the connotation of willful ignorance of something everyone else knows. I could say I deny the idea of a flat earth, but that, to me, does not indicate that it is the obvious or popular position. It just means something more emphatic than “gee, not too sure ’bout that.” But there are many other ways to say it. Perhaps, simply “does not believe” is the best.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
beepbeep (in regards to 22):
I would like to give you some feedback on your comments, but I promise you I’m not offended or angry in the least, nor am I trying to pick a fight or pick apart what you said. I think I hear you loud and clear: From your various comments, I have seen some of the strangness of belief — how it appears on the outside. And that is very instructive. It tells me how we look to observers and what we are not communicating effectively. However, I can perhaps point out where there is some potential for people to take insult in your comments for the viewpoint of faith.
To me, its like a form of wilfull slavery of mind, body and action.
Culturally and historically, slavery is near enough and painful enough, to liken anything to it would be read as harsh by some.
However, your insight is not groundless, but may seem to some to over simplify things. Meant in a figurative way Paul says, “For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave” [1 Cor 7:22 NIV]. He says this in the context of equality in a church where slaves and masters coexist as equals in their faith.
Likewise, Jesus says, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave” [Mt 20:25-27 NIV]. So, following his teaching, it is my intention to become a servant of the poor, the powerless, and anyone who I am called to missionally, even if it comes to doing menial work and enduring abuse equal to that of a slave. But I do not look at that as ignoble.
However, God (at least as presented in Jesus) is not calling us to be slaves. Paul says in a text about the Law vs. faith in Jesus:
Paul is saying that while the old region practiced by the people made them slaves by binding them under law, now they are heirs of God and his universe, free and empowered. So, at least in the Christians case, their worship is the adoration of children for parents and not slaves for masters. I would find it exceedingly hard to worship a god who was an egotistical dictator or a slavemaster, as would many. Obviously, according to my theology, I do not see the Christian God as such.
The point is this. To say that someone is willing to go into “willful slavery” says something about them. The picture itself is very negative. I would place it on par with calling someone “dopefiend” or “junkie”. While that might be your actual opinion of believers, it might come off better phrased in a different way, such as: “You know, this god-worship stuff seems a little like dangerous self-subordination to something you can’t see.” Or even “How is worshiping a god not like slavery?”
I baulk at the idea of being a drone for any ideology.
I would too. And I would not really appreciate being painted as a programmed robot (drone) or instinct-driven mindless mating machine (drone bee) who did a voluntary lobotomy for the sake of some agenda. Again, this might be your opinion of believers, but there is a better way to say it. Like: “I think history bears, or even current events, that many people are following religion blindly. Don’t you think that’s dangerous? Doesn’t that provide unthinking armies for those wishing to promote their ideologies?”
Just thought you might experiment with this way of voicing your objections and see if it bears fruit. For one, you can get away with much more if you seem to be asking a question, and second, there are ways to avoid images that communicate your loathing along with your skepticism. I think it might be a way to leave more common ground open. Most believers who are willing to be honest would say, “Ya know that’s a good point, but…” The questions I listed can and do make me think and they motivate a lot of my activism against certain religious and cultural trends. Really.
Again, I want to reinforce that it is very important for you to let believers know why you worry. (Worship of imaginary firends, if indeed faith is that, is worrisome, as is mindless following of anything.) It’s an excellent check. So this is not a criticism really, as if I was rebutting your position (which I think is valid though I disagree), just a reflection from the believer’s prespective.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:57 am
RE soulster
Thank you for your reply and comments from a believer’s perspective.
I think one of the problems is that it is difficult to pretend “due reverence” for something I don’t believe exists in the first place.
To me, it would be kind of like pretending to be sad in empathy for a child who cried because I didn’t set a place at the table for his/her invisible friend. This analogy isn’t meant to be harsh or derogatory, it just explains plainly how I would find it difficult to summon up due concern for the invisible friend, no matter how offended the child may tell me that their friend is because of it.
I could empathize because the child was upset, but I couldn’t pretend to validate the existence of the invisible friend by agreeing with the child that “yes, I am sure your friend is hurt because he doesn’t have a knife and fork.”
Or, “let me make it all better by giving the invisible friend a piece of my lamb chop. I am sure he/she likes lamb chops.”
Nor would I rush to set a place for the invisible friend and pretend for the sake of the child’s happiness, the existence of said friend.
To me, this would be akin to enabling a fantasy which may be a fun one, but ceases to be so when the child becomes so emotionally invested in the imagined existence of said friend that my lack of belief in the friend causes them great distress.
Now I know that this analogy will suck as far as theists are concerned. Many will think that I am being deliberately rude by comparing their god with a child’s belief in an invisible friend, but there seems no way to explain how strangely absurd I consider god belief to be except to state it openly and honestly in that analogy.
Atheists are in the insidious position by which non-acceptance of a culturally accepted norm (god belief), is viewed as, to go with the above analogy, wilful mocking of the existence of someone’s invisible friend.
Just by not believing in the existence of someone’s god, they are bound to offend someone, even before they open their mouth in an attempt to explain why they don’t believe. And it perplexes me as to why anyone would need to explain why they don’t believe in it in the first place.
Any reason for non-belief is mostly going to be seen as inflammatory, subversive and downright despicable.
As an atheist, it is obvious to me that I will offend people’s god beliefs just by merely stating my disbelief. There really is no way to avoid this as far as I can see. My intention may not be to offend, but my very existence as an atheist will offend many theists.
I suppose my suggestion would be to theists who feel personally offended is to realize that if a god exists, it is the god who should be offended, not them.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Sure, some theists will be insulted for their ‘invisible friend’ as you put it. Oh well. You have every right and principle not to play along. To imply that you should would be to violate your conscience for the sake of conformity — a horrible prospect.
But that wasn’t my point at all. I was pointing out what the comments say about the character of the believer, not the character of the ‘invisible friend’. “Willful slavery” says more about me than God. “Drone for an ideology” says more about who I am than who my God is. That was my point.
True, I believe God can defend himself. And I also refuse to be offended by words, though I will attempt to correct misunderstanding when possible. I am simply offering up what accusations might be heard in your choice of words against believers. But I will say this, your descriptions have shown how absolutely silly much of my life and practice must look to you, which is a worthy point for reflection.
January 6th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
RE soulster
You listen well. I was wondering if I had done my dash with my previous comments, but you saw past any possible offence you may have been able to take from my comments and saw them for what they were. - Someone who is just perplexed how non-belief in our respective cultures is seen as a “bad thing” and why belief in what I would consider absurdities is seen as a “good thing.”
Though admittedly, non-belief and non religiousity is quite common in my part of the world in comparison to perhaps the US.
I agree that I didn’t address the “slavery” and “drones for an ideology” tags very well. I guess I see religions and those who follow them, to be indulging in cult-like behaviours. I would even go as far to say that there is very little operational difference between a cult and a religion. Or a religion and a myth for that matter. The primary difference appears to be a subjective one.
If you believe that a religion is true, it isn’t a cult and if you believe that it is false, it probably is a cult (at least from a subjective point of view.)
Cults require devotion to a charismatic leader/s. (compliance, subordination, indoctrination etc) I would suggest that “cult status” could also be afforded to those who are members of some political groups as well as some religious groups, but especially to those whose religious affiliations have political intent.
(Trying to think of some religious groups who do not have an overt political intent - maybe scientologists, buddhists, the amish?)
So what are the characteristics of a cult?
CULT:
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
3. the object of such devotion.
4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
5. Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
7. the members of such a religion or sect.
8. any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
And - In anthropology, an organization for the conduct of ritual, magical, or other religious observances. Many so-called primitive tribes, for example, have ancestor cults, in which dead ancestors are considered divine and activities are organized to respect their memory and invoke their aid. A cult is also a religious group held together by a dominant, often charismatic individual, or by the worship of a divinity, an idol, or some other object.
Now, of course, as an unbeliever in any and all religions, when I read the descriptions of what a cult is, I think that they refer to most, if not ALL of the religions with which I am familiar.
Whereas, a believer in a specific religion, may think that the definition refers to most if not all the other religions, but NOT the one of which they are a member.
The modus operandi of a cult may involve: -
1. psychological exploitation and manipulation
2. financial exploitation
3. member compliance through indoctrination and/or mind control
4. inculcation of psychological and emotional dependency on the group and its leaders.
Now, as I said, virtually no-one who belongs to a cult believes that they belong to a cult - they basically believe that everyone else who is part of a religious group potentially belongs to a cult, EXCEPT them.
Of course, on the other side of the sliding scale is me. Someone who agrees with Groucho Marx’s comment - “I sent the club a wire stating, Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
January 8th, 2007 at 1:41 am
beepbeep:
Well. Perhaps, then, it is appropriate for you to refer to me as a willful slave or drone for an ideology, for you are not exaggerating for offense or effect, but merely to wake us up for our own good. Since this is your view of believers, I am amzaed at your charity — that you are willing to talk with us even though you doubt it will have effect.
But I can’t help but feel that your using ‘cult’ for a little extra punch. I spend time in theological and anthropological circles where the word is not as dirty as when used for shock value on the evening news. For example, it is common to refer to the temple religion of Judaism in the Bible as “the Hebrew cult” without gasps of shock and fainting. It is even part of the Christian heritage. Under certain very loose definitions, including but not limiting ourselves to yours, I am part of a cult.
However, as far as values go, I would never knowingly consent to:
and would be likely to oppose those who do. In fact, in several of the faith communities I have helped to start, we have many ex-cult members who we help to recover from these crimes.
And, I’m glad this blog does not have membership because I would not want to loose your presence here simply because we accept you.
January 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
RE soulster
It’s probably true that I see most religious groups as being at least similar to cults. The word, “cult”, usually has a negative connotation because the definition indicates that the group’s raison d’être is essentially false.
To be fair, many other organizations could also be considered to have cult-like behaviours although, in the strictest sense, the word “cult” is reserved for organizations which have a charismatic leader with a religious objective.
This conclusion that I consider religions to be cults should be hardly surprising considering I am an atheist.
And I think you are right that people do not willingly, at least on a conscious level, subject themselves to psychological exploitation and manipulation. But many have a non-negotiable faith that not only is their ideology true; but that their subjugation to the cause, is evidence that their ideology is true.
So, a question might be - How conscious are we of emotional and psychological needs which drive us? If we are not conscious (intellectually aware) of our “needs”, perhaps we would be unable to see our actions as a willingness towards indoctrination.
It’s interesting to me how many, if not most religions require total obedience and compliance to a leader, either a human leader or a supernatural leader as part of the group’s raison d’être.
Now, to me, this is possibly an exaggerated expression of an innate genetic desire for leadership and hierarchy, but I think I have mentioned those things before, so I won’t mention them again here.
People like to belong. They like to know their place in a social or cultural hierarchy. It is comforting and self-validating to them. All sorts of groups fulfill these desires in a variety of ways.
Religion, on the otherhand, has these desires “sown up” as religions not only offer a place in the group dynamic while the individual is alive, but they also purport to be able to meet individual’s needs when the person is dead.
Perhaps only an atheist or agnostic can understand how strange that concept seems.
RE: “In fact, in several of the faith communities I have helped to start, we have many ex-cult members who we help to recover from these crimes.”
As an atheist, I would consider that they have just swapped one cult with another cult. “That isn’t the one true cult, this is the one true cult and welcome aboard.”
(There is no way I can think of that will make that statement more palatable and this can obviously become an issue when trying to address people of religious faith.)
Mostly non-believers just don’t say anything when confronted with what they consider to be religious absurdities - they let it slide. Consequently, when they do get around to expressing their opinion on religious issues, some religious people are totally shocked, perhaps offended, and maybe insulted.
We live in cultures where it is seen to be “bad form” to question religious faith, so the majority of us non-believers just sit back and let the religious among us womble on about angels, demons and gods with nary a peep out of us.
Religions have historically tried to present themselves to non-believers as harmless - “Why should it bother you what people believe? People have a right to believe whatever they want.”
This is disengenous and obfuscative at least. People should not have the right for their beliefs to go unquestioned. Religious beliefs have traditionally been given a pass from scrutiny and criticism. Personally, I think it is time for those days to be over.
PS Thank you for your ability to endure conflicting opinions, even though those opinions may be distasteful to you.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Then I will not attempt to explain myself further since I am already guilty of many crimes, and the proclamation of my innocence and harmlessness in these areas will be taken as dishonesty of the most insideous kind.
I would question, however, your ability to listen to me reflected in these statements. I have repleated that I, and many others, are glad to see faith examined in ways it was not before. I do not confess an unquestioning faith for good or ill, so I do not demand or encourage that my fiath remain unquestioned. Again, that this is my wish is self evident by my behavior on this blog. I have made attempts to be honest about my psycho-social motivations in a way so far only lightly reciprocated. I hope to continue to do so, though such vulnerability is not easy. I do not think much of the feedback reflects the nuiance and depth I’ve put forth here, and remains a poor charactature of the most feeble belief that I would loath to possess myself.
What would atheists say here if I claimed they were all psuedo-scientific complainers, mad at the world, who disbelieve because they are mad at God and at the church? They would say I have not listened to them explain themselves. But I do not say that, because I have listened, and will allow that atheists are not all as they have been painted. When they tell me they can be moral, I believe them. When they say reason has brought them conviction over emotion, I believe them. And I long to hear many more things that lead to a deeper understanding that releases fear.
I am glad to hear conflicting opinions, and though their content may not be sweet, the simple fact that they can be freely presented is. I applaud your courage at speaking, though you continually expect the scourge of faith on your back and Inquisitors at your door.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
That is without a doubt the best comment here so far. I attempt to follow your lead, and may fail, but a few stories might put this in perspective:
I’m walking through the forest and happen upon a snake nestled within a bunch of pine cones. There are three options I could take:
1. I could say, ‘Why, hello Mr. snake! I have no idea if you’re venomous and will kill me soon as look at me, or are a harmless garden snake. I’ll take my chances and stick my face inches away from yours and see what happens.’
2. I could bash its head in.
3. I could run away.
It is natural for a human to beat the living shit out of the snake. Nothing tangeable is gained by risking your life for no payoff. Walt Disney isn’t going to swing in and the song and dance number will start up; you can end up very much dead.
If that doesn’t make much sense, then think of this:
When I walk down the street and there are several black men with baggy shirts on the corner, I am either going to look for a weapon or leave. I would be out of my mind to even attempt to even say ‘hello’. I can end up very much dead.
Or, if that doesn’t work:
A black friend of mine went down to Mississippi recently, and his car broke down. He had two options:
A fancy gas station with all the doodads to fix his car, but had a dozen white men on bikes out front, or the shitty gas station on the other side of the street with a black attendant. Will he go to the gas station with the redneck hillbillies out front? Hell no.
As a Jew, I see the Christian culture, and I know that not much has changed. I don’t trust them because they know I killed their god, and it’s so much a part of the Christian theology and culture that I can almost predict that a Jew is going to end up somewhere very dead.
I stick my neck out by even writing here, but it is nowhere as far as soulster does. I cannot be physically attacked, and my Jewishness allows me not to take offense to anything. soulster, on the other hand, is sticking his head close to a viper knowing that he can be bit, and the pain he feels is real.
We’re trying to do something here, and it’s really hard.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
RE: soulster
“Religions have historically tried to present themselves to non-believers as harmless…This is disengenous and obfuscative at least.”
Part of your reply: - “Then I will not attempt to explain myself further since I am already guilty of many crimes, and the proclamation of my innocence and harmlessness in these areas will be taken as dishonesty of the most insideous kind.”
I would suggest that religions have acted this way, but - that is not to suggest that all believers have acted this way, nor have all believers agreed with the actions of their religion.
Perhaps it is impossible for a believer to separate their personality, desires, hopes and attributes from that of the actions of their religion. I don’t know.
I find it easier to separate myself from the actions of other people who consider themselves to be atheists, and also to separate myself from the actions of atheistic governments - as I am not “the collective” and “the collective” isn’t me.
So, when theists sometimes want to talk about Stalin and his atrocities, I don’t feel at anytime that I have anything in common with stalin except that perhaps he was a non-believer.
His actions as a non-believer, or as an atheist, do not reflect negatively upon me because