Does atheism have a rational basis?

[big_lefty]

I disagree. It has been shown that religious experiences can be neurologically mapped. It has been shown that religions almost never agree on even the most fundamental nature of so-called divine beings. The historical veracity of the Bible, the Koran and the Torah is lower than the most unreliable texts. Religions speak of a bygone era, comfortably in the past, when miraculous, strange things occurred. It shrouds itself in a web of fear, perpetuates through child indoctrination, and cloaks its inability to prove itself with cop-outs such as your statement regarding 'corporeal reality'. What the hell kind of reality do you think there is beyond this one, and what on Earth makes you think it exists?

Just as it is a 'fact' that will-o'-the-wisps do not guard buried treasure, so too is it a comfortable 'fact' that religion is bullshit. In short, religion is explainable. God is not.

Once again, you're using evidence based on human standards. The universe doesn't give a rat's ass about neurological mapping and other human science. It's just our arrogance that leads us to think our science
has any validity outside of the human realm. Why is acknowledging the possibility of the existence of something that does not conform to known human reality a "cop-out"? It seems to me that the kind of certainty you have about something which is inherently unknowable is no different in principle from being certain that God exists.

You seem to think I'm arguing that there is a God. I'm not. I'm arguing that nobody can ever possibly know.
So, to your question, I do not know if there's reality beyond this one. I can't know, and neither can anyone else.

[Angry Citizen]

Why is acknowledging the possibility of the existence of something that does not conform to known human reality a "cop-out"?

Because it's stupid to account for things for which there is no evidence. Simple. No, I am not certain that God does not exist. I'm also not particularly sure you exist. Yet I accept as fact that not only does God not exist, but that you exist, simply because I am willing to stake my reputation as collateral. God could indeed have magically set the chimp's DNA to nearly match our own in order to confuse us Doubting Thomases. God could indeed be 'beyond this world', whatever the hell that means. But nothing remotely shows this to be the case. I refuse to compromise reality on the basis of contrived possibility.

[ovnoclov]

I believe all you have pointed out is that we're not 100% certain of anything, witch is a fair assumption but doesn't disprove atheism.

Hey YM

Darn. But can we at least be 100% certain that reason is valid?

[ovnoclov]

Or maybe it's because atheism should be the basis for theology. Anything beyond atheism should be suspect. Frankly, there is no basis for God, any more than there is a basis for a teapot orbiting the sun, its radius larger than Earth's to the sun, yet smaller than Mars' to the sun. If one approaches all questions from a positive, supportive standpoint instead of a negative, skeptical standpoint, one loses that basic filter for determining reality from fiction.

There is no God. Until you can prove me wrong, that fact will remain immutable.

Dear AC

The mere idea of proof itself, may be a proof of the existence of God, or at least the supernatural, for the following reason. To assert that anything at all can be proven, is to assert that something exists independently of our circumstances, such that one cannot truly say, in response to that proof, "oh, that proof is just the result of your biological, chemical, physical, social or other circumstances". To that extent, I think that proof, itself, be said to exist independently of the whole physical universe. Thus, proof, itself, is evidence of something being above the universe, or Nature; or (you saw this coming) "supernatural". Or perhaps you disagree?

[ovnoclov]

I can support that idea. However, I am not sure that rational logic applies to the universe.

In any case, I doubt a deity in the Christian sense plays any part in casuality or the universe. The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms.

Hey Samsara. To even say that you are not sure that rational logic applies to the universe, isn't that to assert the existence of some independent standard, a standard that is separate from the universe and yet simultaneously present in it - like a tree that is distinguishable from a piece of bark composing that tree?

I'm not arguing here for the existence of a Christian deity, just that atheism does not have a rational basis, because it attacks as circumstantial the very reasoning by which we can reason. - It seems to attribute Reason and the ability to reason, to one's biological, social or other circumstances.

Thanks for responding,

o

[ovnoclov]

You're welcome and thanks for responding,

It's news to me that atheism has anything to do with reason being independent from causality. I can't answer that question since I don't agree with the premise behind it.

Hi BL. I agree that reason is related to causality, but isn't it also independent from causality, lest someone be able to say "your so-called 'independent reason' is just the result of what you had for breakfast this morning", or, in another context, "you say that trees are precious only because you're a tree-hugger", or "you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists only because you were brought up with that belief by your parents".

Cheers,

o

[ovnoclov]

Or maybe it's because atheism should be the basis for theology. Anything beyond atheism should be suspect. Frankly, there is no basis for God, any more than there is a basis for a teapot orbiting the sun, its radius larger than Earth's to the sun, yet smaller than Mars' to the sun. If one approaches all questions from a positive, supportive standpoint instead of a negative, skeptical standpoint, one loses that basic filter for determining reality from fiction.

There is no God. Until you can prove me wrong, that fact will remain immutable.

Dear AC,

I'd rather argue for the existence of "supernatural" reason, which I believe would thereby disprove atheism by establishing the existence of the supernatural, rather than argue for a particular form of supernatural belief, such as the existence of God.

First, would you agree that proof itself exists; that things can be proven true or false? If so, I would then seek to prove the existence of God, by arguing that proof must be dependent upon the elements that make up the proof, and yet it must independently of them, lest someone attribute that proof to mere determinism, by saying, for example, "that proof is just the result of your breakfast you had this morning", or the like.

o

[ovnoclov]

Quote:
Quote by: samsara15
I can support that idea. However, I am not sure that rational logic applies to the universe.

In any case, I doubt a deity in the Christian sense plays any part in casuality or the universe. The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms.


"The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms"

But of course we must see the universe in human terms. To also say that we use human minds to comprehend the universe does not alter matters.

Quite right and an excellent point. It's an attempt to impose human standards on a universe which probably does not conform to them, which is why it makes no sense. It's tempting to think you have to be stupid to buy into it, but I do know some smart people who do. Mind you, I also find it stupid, to a lesser degree, to be certain there can't be a God, because once again, it's based on human notions (albeit more sensible ones) which likely don't apply to the universe. The universe is vast and unknowable, therefore we can't possibly know the truth about this.

But isn't science at least a valid human standard to which the universe DOES conform? Why do you say the universe is vast and unknowable, when we're learning so much about it right now? I recall that Einstein said that the most remarkable thing about the universe is that it is in fact comprehensible.

Cheers,

o

[ncb1397]

Why do you say the universe is vast and unknowable, when we're learning so much about it right now?

Yeah, this is the universe...



Atleast, that is how we think about the universe. Of course, such visualizations are absurdly elementary. The universe isn't a bunch of spheres playing marbles. For one, there is atleast wave-particle duality. And that doesn't even mark the beginning of quantum strangeness.

Anyways, people think that God is a fantastical bizarre concept. I argue it is no more bizarre than our own existance. The mere fact of psychological sentience defies the concept of the universe equating to a great game of billards. Obviously, there is a psychic/sentient element beyond the mere matter and math itself. The game isn't simply running its route alone. The game is being observed. These two universes are vastly different conceptually. The spheres above represent inanimate objects. If this were to be that all that there was, no tree falling the forest would make a sound. Although, of course, trees would fall in the forest.

[ovnoclov]

Yeah, this is the universe...



Atleast, that is how we think about the universe. Of course, such visualizations are absurdly elementary. The universe isn't a bunch of spheres playing marbles. For one, there is atleast wave-particle duality. And that doesn't even mark the beginning of quantum strangeness.

Anyways, people think that God is a fantastical bizarre concept. I argue it is no more bizarre than our own existance. The mere fact of psychological sentience defies the concept of the universe equating to a great game of billards. Obviously, there is a psychic/sentient element beyond the mere matter and math itself. The game isn't simply running its route alone. The game is being observed. These two universes are vastly different conceptually. The spheres above represent inanimate objects. If this were to be that all that there was, no tree falling the forest would make a sound. Although, of course, trees would fall in the forest.

Dear ncb1397

Can I call you "97" for short? I agree that the "wave-particle duality" of quantum physics is weird, as are other things like "quantum entanglement" (Wikipedia is wonderful.) Also, that psychological sentience defies determinism by present scientific methods. But my point is that even if science were to one day explain the whole physical universe, (which it may well do) the fact of reason itself is supernatural, so far as a deterministic explanation of it undoes even the very conclusion that "reason itself is deterministic".

In addition to having heard of deterministic explanations of quantum mechanics (such as the Bohmian approach - ah, the joys of Wikipedia), which purport to eliminate the indeterminancy of the established indeterminant (or "Copenhagen interpretation"?), reliance on psychic phenomena (aka Aldous Huxley, e.g.) seems to involve lots of expensive and odd drugs, and I'd rather not go there.

I like your "game" theory. A friend once explained transcendence by reference to chess pieces - if you asked a queen whether she was free, and she could speak, she might say "yes, I can move up and down and to the side like my rooks, or at an angle like my bishops, or one move at a time, like my dear husband, the king". The concept of a higher-level force moving her might be quite beyond her comprehension - a game on a higher level?

What are the spheres you refer to? Planetary intelligences a.k.a. CS Lewis' "Cosmic Trilogy"?

Thanks for the detailed response,

o

[ItsDarts]

Hey YM

Darn. But can we at least be 100% certain that reason is valid?

This would depend on the particular definition of reason you are trying to equate. I feel your OP is equivocating the word "Reason in general" with the way atheism approaches "Reason specifically". Atheism sees "No Reason" to hold the conviction that gods exist.

Reason;

1.)The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.

2.)A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction

3.)An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

4.)The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.

5.)Good judgment; sound sense.

6.)A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.

7.)Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

I see your OP using definitions 1, 2, 3, possibly 5 as your basis for the word Reason where I feel atheism definitions 4 and 7. Our reasoning is based on logic, where theistic reason is based on conviction. Can logic be wrong? I can't answer that, but I think we do know that convictions can be wrong. We can see this especially in religions, where each religion reasons that other religions are wrong. but if atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in theism (personal creator gods)" then our conclusions are typically based on logic. For instance, we have no evidence (other than anecdotal) that "supernatural" exists. We can't test "Supernatural", and although there are claims of "supernatural" I don't believe it has ever been verified scientifically. There have been many gods throughout history, yet we have no evidence for any of them that can be tested, none of them have been observed, nothing can be predicted with the hypothesis of god. Therefore, atheism has no reason to accept unsupported claims.

[yukonmuffin]

Hey YM

Darn. But can we at least be 100% certain that reason is valid?

In our environment alone. Rules change on a bigger or smaller scale, and that's where the uncertainty comes in.