The Atheism Delusion

[psyche101]

9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I would go as far as to say there are no facts to consider for or against a god at this point in our human understanding . Yet, we are open to any potential evidence. I think you say it well  “god is a human idea not the result of observation or in any way measurable.”  I think there is better reason to just say we do not know as opposed to anything else at this time. 

 

That's it 100%

I'm not sure why so many struggle to grasp this. God is a man made idea. Science is observation of nature in motion. 

For me at least, that right there is a very good reason to second guess the god idea. 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, signs_of_the_times said:

Agnostics are 50/50 on the subject while atheists are 99.99/00.01 ? Lol.

No. It is as unlikely to be in perfect equipoise as it is to be any other precise epistemic state. Just as there would be very few atheists if the criterion were certainty that there is no god (and very few thoughtful theists if the crierion were certainty that some god does exist), there would be very few agnostics (even fewer than there are already, lol) if the criterion were scrupulous equipoise.

Overt behavior is, in any case, far easier to measure than internal mental states (even for the person whose mental state it is, very often). With respect to a yes-no question, the relevant overt behavior is to estimate and profess an answer. I think the wording of the famous Dawkins bus placards nicely defines a workable atheist estimate and profession: There probably is no god.

The "probably" is a nice touch. Here on the UM boards, there is a community standard that posters should label opinion statements with words like probably so that they aren't confused with categorical fact claims. However, given that the speaker is a fallible mortal, there is no real difference between There is no god and There probably is no god.

I am an agnostic, and you would know this because I won't tell you that there probably is no god, and I won't tell you there probably is at least one, either. That doesn't mean I am altogether ignorant of the issues in the case, it just means that I treat the question of God as an open question.

I don't know whether there is a word for somebody who asserts "There is no god" with complete certainty. I do know that "In your opinion, is there a god?" and "How confident are you about your answer?" are two different questions. Atheist, theist and agnostic refer to answers to the first question. My guess is that if you want a single expression that covers both questions at once, you'll have to settle for a noun phrase rather than a single word, a really, really confident atheist or something like that.

Finally, lawyers have it right, IMO, about "burden of proof." The burden rests on anybody seeking to change the status quo. No burden attaches to a simple disclosure of your views about anything; a burden always attaches if you wish your views to be taken up by anybody else. Thus, I have no burden in disclosing that I am an agnostic, but I would have a burden were I to urge you to join me. Ditto atheists; ditto theists.

Probably.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, Arbenol said:

Next time the missus tells me I've got nothing between my ears I'm showing her that.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, signs_of_the_times said:

A lot of atheists express that sentiment in different ways, yes. For example, through ridicule. Many atheists like to ridicule theism but most people wouldn't ridicule a belief that they know has a chance of being true. 

But a quick internet search will give you many examples. Stephen Hawking for example. I don't know how you know that most atheists aren't in this category. Are there scientific surveys on this?

I don't believe in a god because I have seen no compelling reason to think that one exists. 

So instead of endlessly arguing what you think atheism is, why dont you tell us what you believe and what made you believe it ? That last part is the most important.

[signs_of_the_times]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

See this?

 

It's what nothing would look like.

Nothing is not empty.

You seem to be insisting that it is.

You're getting the wrong idea of what some physicists mean when they call this nothing. Its a vacuum in the sense that its void of particles. It's still made of space, time, and fields. 

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Elaborate on how atheism "is also a faith", starting with definitions for "atheism" and "faith".

 This might have been answered, but both theism and atheism are belief constructs, which we can only build because we  lack evidences 

If a person has knowledge via evidences that gods do not exist, or that gods do exist, then the y can't be a theist or an atheist.

  Theism and atheism can only exist where there is no /inadequate,  knowldge. 

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Atheists don't have to refute theists.

The burden of proof belongs to those claiming god(s) exist.

So far, none have ever met that burden.

No; to be an atheist (ie believe gods do not exist) one must also have reasons, or faith.

   To claim gods do not exist as a factual(non belief) position, one must also have evidences that they do not (and lack of evidence is not evidence of lack)

No one has ever proven that gods do not exist, either. 

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

What claim are we/they making?

A theist says, "God(s) exist."

An atheist says, "I don't believe that claim."

That's it.

While some atheists may claim they know that god(s) don't exist that isn't what the term means to the whole of people that fall under that label.

It is simply a lack of belief in god(s).

No an atheist is saying "I do not believe gods exist."  

No matter what modern atheists claim, that is the definition of an atheist Ie a person who professes that gods do not exist 

reading your statement one way it is correct. ie if you dont believe gods exist (and thus don't accept a theists claim that the y do)  then you are an atheist, but it has to be an active disbelief. 

 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, signs_of_the_times said:

What do you call people that are 100% sure there is no God? I'm curious to hear what term you'd use to describe them. 

Whatever that term is, I'm sure they fall under the bigger umbrella term of Atheist. Along with other groups. 

1. "They are also making a claim"

Example:

If John says that a dentist named Dr. Smith removed his wisdom tooth, he is making a claim. 

If Susan says that John is delusional because Dr. Smith does not exist, she is also making a claim.

2. "They are sure that everything was not designed"

There are a group of people that fit this description. Is there a term for them? Let me know and I can use it next time.

 

surety is a belief not knowledge,  so the y are atheists (UNLESS the y have convincing personal evidences that gods do not exist, and i dont know how anyone could get those ) 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You are correct.

What does the Atheist need to prove? 

Neither theist nor atheist needs to PROVE anything.

Both are holding (for reasons of their own) opposing belief positions.

No one ever has to prove a belief position, only be able to justify why the y hold it. 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Arbenol said:

I've often thought the same.

I think the major difference is that atheists take a position of active disbelief as opposed to fence sitting. I consider atheism to be a specific subset of agnosticism.

First part is correct 

However an agnostic makes a different choice. Rather than construct a position of belief or disbelief they say, for many reasons. 

" I am not going to construct either a belief or disbelief position  "

  Simple LACK of belief is not atheism.  Thus an agnostic is NOT an atheist but an entirely different thing 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Sherapy said:

An agnostic claims that one cannot evidence or disprove god as we do not have a way to do this.  We say we do not know at this time but are open to considering evidence. One can argue anything, it is the facts that give the claim its weight. 

Thats ONE of the reasons an agnostic might chose not to construct a belief/disbelief position

They are often just people who don't construct beliefs about anything much, preferring to keep an open mind until the y can know 

Such a person, when asked, "Do you believe there is life on Mars, or do you believe there is not  ?" might just reply.

"Neither. I haven't constructed a belief position, and will wait and see." 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I would go as far as to say there are no facts to consider for or against a god at this point in our human understanding . Yet, we are open to any potential evidence. I think you say it well  “god is a human idea not the result of observation or in any way measurable.”  I think there is better reason to just say we do not know as opposed to anything else at this time. 

 

That's a fair opinion/belief, based on your own experiences.

It is not a logical position  for a person who DOES have evidences that  "gods" exist 

[Mr Walker]

57 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No. It is as unlikely to be in perfect equipoise as it is to be any other precise epistemic state. Just as there would be very few atheists if the criterion were certainty that there is no god (and very few thoughtful theists if the crierion were certainty that some god does exist), there would be very few agnostics (even fewer than there are already, lol) if the criterion were scrupulous equipoise.

Overt behavior is, in any case, far easier to measure than internal mental states (even for the person whose mental state it is, very often). With respect to a yes-no question, the relevant overt behavior is to estimate and profess an answer. I think the wording of the famous Dawkins bus placards nicely defines a workable atheist estimate and profession: There probably is no god.

The "probably" is a nice touch. Here on the UM boards, there is a community standard that posters should label opinion statements with words like probably so that they aren't confused with categorical fact claims. However, given that the speaker is a fallible mortal, there is no real difference between There is no god and There probably is no god.

I am an agnostic, and you would know this because I won't tell you that there probably is no god, and I won't tell you there probably is at least one, either. That doesn't mean I am altogether ignorant of the issues in the case, it just means that I treat the question of God as an open question.

I don't know whether there is a word for somebody who asserts "There is no god" with complete certainty. I do know that "In your opinion, is there a god?" and "How confident are you about your answer?" are two different questions. Atheist, theist and agnostic refer to answers to the first question. My guess is that if you want a single expression that covers both questions at once, you'll have to settle for a noun phrase rather than a single word, a really, really confident atheist or something like that.

Finally, lawyers have it right, IMO, about "burden of proof." The burden rests on anybody seeking to change the status quo. No burden attaches to a simple disclosure of your views about anything; a burden always attaches if you wish your views to be taken up by anybody else. Thus, I have no burden in disclosing that I am an agnostic, but I would have a burden were I to urge you to join me. Ditto atheists; ditto theists.

Probably.

Good explanation.

However a person who asserts "There is no god" with complete certainty is an atheist 

 A person who asserts with complete certainty tha t gods exist is a theist 

Really the degree of certainty is irrelevant.

  It is where you stand when asked what you believe   which determines your status 

UNLESS both/either, are making, not belief statements,  but claims of fact  eg "I dont believe gods exist, I know the y do."

  Such a person, if being truthful, is not theist, atheist, or agnostic  

[psyche101]

37 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

You're getting the wrong idea of what some physicists mean when they call this nothing. Its a vacuum in the sense that its void of particles. It's still made of space, time, and fields. 

That's what nothing is. A boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles. 

 

[signs_of_the_times]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's what nothing is. A boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles. 

 

Here's an excerpt from the Reception section of the Wikipedia page on his book:

Quote

 

In the New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he claimed Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing, since if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields, the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss.^[7]

Caleb Scharf, writing in Nature, said that "it would be easy for this remarkable story to revel in self-congratulation, but Krauss steers it soberly and with grace".^[8]

Ray Jayawardhana, Canada Research Chair in observational astrophysics at the University of Toronto, wrote for The Globe and Mail that Kraus "delivers a spirited, fast-paced romp through modern cosmology and its strong underpinnings in astronomical observations and particle physics theory" and that he "makes a persuasive case that the ultimate question of cosmic origin – how something, namely the universe, could arise from nothing – belongs in the realm of science rather than theology or philosophy".^[9]

In New Scientist, Michael Brooks wrote, "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted. That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can't be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly."^[10]

Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."

 

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

[signs_of_the_times]

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I don't believe in a god because I have seen no compelling reason to think that one exists. 

So instead of endlessly arguing what you think atheism is, why dont you tell us what you believe and what made you believe it ? That last part is the most important.

The teleology of everything. And experience.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

33 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

The teleology of everything. And experience.

So you are fine with demanding that atheists show perfect evidence for their beliefs, but you can't even tell us what you believe and why. Yeah thats not a double standard at all..... 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, signs_of_the_times said:

Here's an excerpt from the Reception section of the Wikipedia page on his book:

Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

Mmmm

Gosh. Context is everything right?

1 hour ago, signs_of_the_times said:

In the New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he claimed Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing, since if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields, the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss.^[7]

Yes, Albert and Krauss aren't exactly friends. Krauss addressed Albert's claims here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

This strikes me as somewhat personal on Albert's (and admittedly Krauss) behalf. Ive heard his argument before, how is it not based on semantics?

Quote

Caleb Scharf, writing in Nature, said that "it would be easy for this remarkable story to revel in self-congratulation, but Krauss steers it soberly and with grace".^[8]

A positive review.

Quote

Ray Jayawardhana, Canada Research Chair in observational astrophysics at the University of Toronto, wrote for The Globe and Mail that Kraus "delivers a spirited, fast-paced romp through modern cosmology and its strong underpinnings in astronomical observations and particle physics theory" and that he "makes a persuasive case that the ultimate question of cosmic origin – how something, namely the universe, could arise from nothing – belongs in the realm of science rather than theology or philosophy".^[9]

Another positive review.

Quote

In New Scientist, Michael Brooks wrote, "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted. That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can't be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly."^[10]

What's the afterword got to do with anything? Brooks likes the book, he hated the afterword.

The entire quote reads as:

That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can’t be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly. A Universe From Nothing is a great book: readable, informative and topical. Inexplicably, though, Dawkins compares it to On the Origin of Species, and suggests it might be cosmology’s “deadliest blow to supernaturalism”. That leaves the reader with the entirely wrong sense of having just ingested a polemic, rather than an excellent guide to the cutting edge of physics. Krauss doesn’t need Dawkins; a writer this good can speak for himself.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328472-000-trying-to-make-the-cosmos-out-of-nothing/#ixzz6jzbJZS2j

 

Quote

Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."

There's about a page missing between the start of that paragraph and the end of it.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-universe-from-nothing

I'm actually quite a fan of Professor Carroll's work. I cite him here often. Ive upset quite a few believers with his presentation on how physics refutes the life after death idea. What can I say. Posters like to shoot the messenger. 

That's a misleading except from this blog page:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-universe-from-nothing

Sean Carroll is not saying Krauss is wrong. He is complaining that his representation is limited. He feels that the claim that our laws of physics are not inevitable. He states that within the framework of quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of possible Hilbert spaces, and an infinite number of possibile Hamiltonians, each of which defines a perfectly legitimate set of physical laws. And only one of them can be right, so other types of physics could evolve into a universe, which is getting into the multiverse hypothesis.

At the same link that paragraph is lifted from, Sean Carroll also states:

If your real goal is to refute claims that a Creator is a necessary (or even useful) part of a complete cosmological scheme, then the above points about "creation from nothing" are really quite on point. And that point is that the physical universe can perfectly well be self-contained; it doesn't need anything or anyone from outside to get it started, even if it had a "beginning." 

Like I said. Context is everything.

That's actually 4 out of 5 supporting reviews. And the one who remains negative has a personal problem with Krauss.

 

So what's this got to do with nothing? Do any of those critics deny that it is not empty? 

I've mentioned the Casimir effect. Are you up to speed there?

Edited January 19, 2021 by psyche101

[+Nuclear Wessel]

7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Mmmm

Gosh. Context is everything right?

Yes, Albert and Krauss aren't exactly friends. Krauss addressed Albert's claims here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

This strikes me as somewhat personal on Albert's (and admittedly Krauss) behalf. Ive heard his argument before, how is it not based on semantics?

A positive review.

Another positive review.

What's the afterword got to do with anything? Brooks likes the book, he hated the afterword.

The entire quote reads as:

That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can’t be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly. A Universe From Nothing is a great book: readable, informative and topical. Inexplicably, though, Dawkins compares it to On the Origin of Species, and suggests it might be cosmology’s “deadliest blow to supernaturalism”. That leaves the reader with the entirely wrong sense of having just ingested a polemic, rather than an excellent guide to the cutting edge of physics. Krauss doesn’t need Dawkins; a writer this good can speak for himself.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328472-000-trying-to-make-the-cosmos-out-of-nothing/#ixzz6jzbJZS2j

 

There's about a page missing between the start of that paragraph and the end of it.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-universe-from-nothing

I'm actually quite a fan of Professor Carroll's work. I cite him here often. Ive upset quite a few believers with his presentation on how physics refutes the life after death idea. What can I say. Posters like to shoot the messenger. 

That's a misleading except from this blog page:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-universe-from-nothing

Sean Carroll is not saying Krauss is wrong. He is complaining that his representation is limited. He feels that the claim that our laws of physics are not inevitable. He states that within the framework of quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of possible Hilbert spaces, and an infinite number of possibile Hamiltonians, each of which defines a perfectly legitimate set of physical laws. And only one of them can be right, so other types of physics could evolve into a universe, which is getting into the multiverse hypothesis.

At the same link that paragraph is lifted from, Sean Carroll also states:

If your real goal is to refute claims that a Creator is a necessary (or even useful) part of a complete cosmological scheme, then the above points about "creation from nothing" are really quite on point. And that point is that the physical universe can perfectly well be self-contained; it doesn't need anything or anyone from outside to get it started, even if it had a "beginning." 

Like I said. Context is everything.

That's actually 4 out of 5 supporting reviews. And the one who remains negative has a personal problem with Krauss.

 

So what's this got to do with nothing? Do any of those critics deny that it is not empty? 

I've mentioned the Casimir effect. Are you up to speed there?

You know I've always wanted to get around to reading "A Universe From Nothing". It's relatively short, as well. I've added it to my iPad.

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

No. It is as unlikely to be in perfect equipoise as it is to be any other precise epistemic state. Just as there would be very few atheists if the criterion were certainty that there is no god (and very few thoughtful theists if the crierion were certainty that some god does exist), there would be very few agnostics (even fewer than there are already, lol) if the criterion were scrupulous equipoise.

Overt behavior is, in any case, far easier to measure than internal mental states (even for the person whose mental state it is, very often). With respect to a yes-no question, the relevant overt behavior is to estimate and profess an answer. I think the wording of the famous Dawkins bus placards nicely defines a workable atheist estimate and profession: There probably is no god.

The "probably" is a nice touch. Here on the UM boards, there is a community standard that posters should label opinion statements with words like probably so that they aren't confused with categorical fact claims. However, given that the speaker is a fallible mortal, there is no real difference between There is no god and There probably is no god.

I am an agnostic, and you would know this because I won't tell you that there probably is no god, and I won't tell you there probably is at least one, either. That doesn't mean I am altogether ignorant of the issues in the case, it just means that I treat the question of God as an open question.

I don't know whether there is a word for somebody who asserts "There is no god" with complete certainty. I do know that "In your opinion, is there a god?" and "How confident are you about your answer?" are two different questions. Atheist, theist and agnostic refer to answers to the first question. My guess is that if you want a single expression that covers both questions at once, you'll have to settle for a noun phrase rather than a single word, a really, really confident atheist or something like that.

Finally, lawyers have it right, IMO, about "burden of proof." The burden rests on anybody seeking to change the status quo. No burden attaches to a simple disclosure of your views about anything; a burden always attaches if you wish your views to be taken up by anybody else. Thus, I have no burden in disclosing that I am an agnostic, but I would have a burden were I to urge you to join me. Ditto atheists; ditto theists.

Probably.

Word. 

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 This might have been answered, but both theism and atheism are belief constructs, which we can only build because we  lack evidences 

If a person has knowledge via evidences that gods do not exist, or that gods do exist, then the y can't be a theist or an atheist.

  Theism and atheism can only exist where there is no /inadequate,  knowldge. 

Clean up on aisle Walker: knowledge is objective based on fact, knowing is subjective and undergirded with faith. 
 

 

 

 

Edited January 19, 2021 by Sherapy

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Clean up on aisle Walker: 

      

[psyche101]

29 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

You know I've always wanted to get around to reading "A Universe From Nothing". It's relatively short, as well. I've added it to my iPad.

Krauss is feisty, but I reckon he's great. 

[psyche101]

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Word. 

Love the end of that post.

Probably.

Not only brilliant, a real way with words. Enjoyable to read. Cheers eight bit's. Love your work.