Forum menu
Atheists are interested in understanding reality, not controlling it. Of course, if we can derive useful technologies and knowledge along the way...
I think that it is fantastic that the debate of Jesus' life & miracles continue to provoke such strong thougths/ reactions some 2000 years after he was born...
God continues to reveal his world (and all its intricate beauty) to us yet we remain blind & self-centred in our own importance/ intelligence.
it's just bloody physics
Exactly what I mean!! "It's just physics"!! Thanks for demonstrating the point. You may as well say "It just is" or "It's turtles all the way down"
There are things we do not understand.Therefore God must be true
Really? Is that what you understood my post to say?? I've never even said "God must be true" Let me ry one last time for you.
Some people believe in God, other people believe in physics some believe in both. Neither understands much about them or how or why they work. For many, they are both an absraction. But the physics believers 'know' that someone else has worked it all out, except that they haven't.
Get it now?
Better trying to understand the world around you, rather than attempting blissful ignorance.
I don't think anyone here has said otherwise. It's just that some people chose not to explore some ideas. They start with an idea which is a result of their environment rather than any detailed study and refuse to explore it. This cuts both ways.
If you could come up with a theory and set of predictions that could be verifiable demonstrated that there was a high probability that it was turtles all the way down, then yes, you may as well say that it's the same as saying it's just physics 🙂
I do understand the point you're trying to make though.
jond's example of flight is a good one. It is easily demonstrable how a plane flies - differential wing air pressures, forward thrust etc., rather than a "god" picking the plane up and moving it about...
I am not suggesting God picks up planes and moves them about. I'm not sure where you got this idea. I was saying that the earlier defence about there being loads of stuff in books and on the web about how this stuff works is not valid, as it is demonstrable that there are lots of misconceptions being published and taught about this domain.
If you could come up with a theory and set of predictions
exactly!! I doubt that some of the folks here could do that, let alone in any comprehensive way. They are sure that someone else has done it and so that is good enough. That is faith or a belief.
[i]That is faith or a belief.[/i]
Indeed it is, but I think to some extent you're beginning to conflate different meanings of the word. This is neatly described in the OED definition of faith-
Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, of. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.
I for instance have a faith and belief that my cat won't have peeded on the sofa when I get home. For me, the importance of a faith or belief is based on whether, on exploration, it seems reasonably rational. For the cat's sake it better be.
Well, I don't want to be anti-semantic, but pulling out the dictionary definiton just pulls the argument in a differetn direction. If you are unhappy with "faith" then "belief" will do. But you know what i mean.
the importance is to whether the faith or belief is reasonably rational
and in terms of your cat peeing, you probably know enough about your cat to be able to make that decison.
Ahhh I see the tea break is over
Anyways the main problem I have with both camps, the atheist and Abrahamic gods, is their hubristic certainty that they are right!
There is enough that science does not know to allow for some sort of theistic interpretation, any other viewpoint is viewing science as dogma which suggests a semi-religious zeal in believing in science. This arrogance just gets theists backs up.
There is also plenty wrong with the religions (particularly the Abrahamic ones of Christianity, Judaism, Islam), or people's interpretation of their dogma. A greater humility would be appropriate behaviour and probably closer to the spirit if not the words of their books.
Yes it is in people nature to want to believe that they are right - what any spiritual tradition should do is to modify their behaviour towards a better less fanatical or dogmatic view of the world. Sadly many religions (and I include atheism in this) do precisely the opposite.
And just don't get me started on the Devil... people commit evil acts! Blaming it on the Devil is a bit like a 4 year old denying they wrote on the wall, when they were the only one in the room and it says "<insert 4 years old name> was here."
BTW I have little faith in our cats, particularly when it's cold / wet / snowy 👿 grrrrrr
CharlieMingus - surely it is about levels though?
Using the argument you present you end up eventually at solipsism. I believe I exist but nothing else. Absolutely everything becomes an issue of 'faith' which makes the word itself meaningless.
Usually I go with the phrase: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.". If someone says that their house is painted blue then I'm happy to believe them unless proven otherwise. If someone says their house is painted blue and levitates ten feet off the ground with no visible means of support then I am likely to demand proof.
I think this is really playing with the word 'belief'. My acceptance of fluid dynamics as a model for how certain things work is not a faith in the same manner as a religious one.
I think this is really playing with the word 'belief'.
Well, i'm not too concerned waht you call it. But belief seems a good word for accepting that things happen because of certain things, without having any understanding about waht those certain things are, and faith is what it sounds like when you trust that other folks have worked it out for you. But as I said, I don't really want to get involved in a semantic argument. Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.
There is enough that science does not know to allow for some sort of theistic interpretation, any other viewpoint is viewing science as dogma which suggests a semi-religious zeal in believing in science.
Sorry but that is nonsense. Gaps in science does not allow for theistic interpretation as all this does is end up with a "god of the gaps" something which even most theists find unacceptable.
Also a scientific viewpoint and an athiest viewpoint are not the same thing. Many scientists are also theists and many athiests believe in all sorts of non scientific nonsence.
Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.
No you're not. What you are saying is like those who conflate the colloquial definition of the word "theory" with the scientific definition. It's the same word but with two very very different meanings.
No you're not. What you are saying is like those who conflate the colloquial definition of the word "theory" with the scientific definition. It's the same word but with two very very different meanings.
Well, now why don't you tell me what I mean then. and what others mean when they say theory
Sorry but that is nonsense. Gaps in science does not allow for theistic interpretation as all this does is end up with a "god of the gaps" something which even most theists find unacceptable.
I would say it allows for some sort of god as architect rather than god of the gaps.
Also a scientific viewpoint and an athiest viewpoint are not the same thing. Many scientists are also theists and many athiests believe in all sorts of non scientific nonsence.
The trouble is that atheists use science to define their arguments.
Really? Is that what you understood my post to say?? I've never even said "God must be true" Let me ry one last time for you.Some people believe in God, other people believe in physics some believe in both.
Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive then it boils down to what I have said.
Neither understands much about them or how or why they work. For many, they are both an absraction. But the physics believers 'know' that someone else has worked it all out, except that they haven't.
The "who" that you refer to that apparently "believers" in Physics defer to, "who" is that "someone else" exactly?
Get it now?
I think I was right the first time!
The trouble is that atheists use science to define their arguments
No, [i]some[/i] athiests use science to define their arguments. Some theists do the same.
Well, i'm not too concerned waht you call it. But belief seems a good word for accepting that things happen because of certain things, without having any understanding about waht those certain things are, and faith is what it sounds like when you trust that other folks have worked it out for you. But as I said, I don't really want to get involved in a semantic argument. Call it what you like. We are talking about the same thing.
But the issue is the whole argument you are positing is just that - a semantic one. I have 'faith' that aeroplanes work, just like others have 'faith' in a deity or deities. Your argument all hinges around the meaning of the words 'belief' and 'faith'.
I am not a scientist so I may be wrong, my understanding is:
A theory is testable, repeatable and withstands objective peer scrutiny.
Some theories may also be termed "facts" but in scientific terms are still "theories"
Theories without any underpinning are hypothesis. They may be rubbish and not stand scrutiny or testing. They can then be refined or dispensed with, any prediction could be one of these.
Religious teachings about where we came from withstand no scrutiny hence cannot be theories, they are hypothesis's and cannot be compared (as those with an interest in teaching creationism are want to do by corrupting the minds of the youngest and most vulnerable in our society)
Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive ...
They don't
The "who" that you refer to that apparently "believers" in Physics defer to, "who" is that "someone else" exactly?...
I am not a scientist
Well then, you tell me.
Some theories may also be termed "facts"
No.
Religious teachings about where we came from withstand no scrutiny
Let's not confuse religous teachings with ideas about the existence of God. Though I'd be interested to know what you know of these teachings.
I have 'faith' that aeroplanes work, just like others have 'faith' in a deity or deities.
No this is not my use of the term faith. Aeroplanes do work, we've seen that. Gravity happens, we've seen that. The 'faith' comes in when you say, Well, I've no idea how it works, but i'm sure some very clever people have thought about it and I'm sure they are right.
When there are two conflicting theories about a physical phenomenon and you lack the understanding and knowledge to know which is right, yet you chose one over the otehr, what is that if not just a belief?
No this is not my use of the term faith. Aeroplanes do work, we've seen that. Gravity happens, we've seen that. The 'faith' comes in when you say, Well, I've no idea how it works, but i'm sure some very clever people have thought about it and I'm sure they are right.
While I see what you are saying there I prefer to change it to:
[i]Well I've no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.[/i]
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind, depending upon evidence. As Tom Baker's Doctor stated: "Being sure of any one thing is a sign of limited intelligence." 😆
Well I've no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.
The underlying presumption here is that "someone" actually knows. This is not always the case. And certianly not with gravity
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind, depending upon evidence
Yup, though I would necessarily be so prescriptive that it needs to be evidence. For me...
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind,
Whilst the two make claims about our universe which are mutually exclusive ...They don't
Wow somebodies been busy!
Judaism claims the world is only circa 6000 years old.
Christians believe that there is an afterlife and some even believe natural disasters are as a result of homosexuality! They also believe the laws of biology and physica can be suspended to facilitate the virgin birth and that the dead can be brought back to life.
If you cant see how these are at odds with those that think these things are not possible then its really quite concerning.
The "who" that you refer to that apparently "believers" in Physics defer to, "who" is that "someone else" exactly?...
I am not a scientist
Well then, you tell me.
You raised the question of a "somebody" not me so I think it is your question to answer not mine.
I'm never sure anyone is right and am willing to change my mind,
But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind? I usually ask for a chat or discussion (like this one). Obviously you haven't changed your mind regarding this discussion - why not? Normally when a person has a view of something and someone disputes it they ask for a reason why they should change their mind. Or if you see something that is contrary to your view you change your mind - usually. That is called evidence.
You raised the question of a "somebody" not me so I think it is your question to answer not mine.
How am i supposed to know who it is [i]you [/i]believe about Physics?
But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind? I usually ask for a chat or discussion (like this one). Obviously you haven't changed your mind regarding this discussion - why not? Normally when a person has a view of something and someone disputes it they ask for a reason why they should change their mind. Or if you see something that is contrary to your view you change your mind - usually. That is called evidence.
Depends really, I've changed my mind about some things based on this discussion. If by why not, you mean I haven't changed my mind about the existence or not of a God. I'd be surprised if you could point me to where i stated my beliefs in that respect. If you mean have i changed my mind about people who do not believe in a god? Then now, but in this discussion I have not heard anything new, nor has it been presented in any way other than that which I have heard in any number of arguments over the years. The 'there is no proof' argument is not new nor is it particularly complex.
Well I've no idea how it works, but given time I can find out.The underlying presumption here is that "someone" actually knows. This is not always the case. And certianly not with gravity
Then I must respond with either "No-one knows, [b]yet[/b]." (which may be the case with gravity - after all people are continuing their experiments and theories now) and possibly "It may be that we do not find out." Neither requires unquestioning belief in the existence of one or more of an infinite number of speculated entities to do that thinking/magicking away for us.
"I don't know."/"I'm not sure" - I can live with those answers.
But what would it take, therefore, to change your mind?
Any number of things, but many times it is not a predictable process. When I was with a group of journalists who had been out of contact for 2 days and they started saying Diana had died, then I didn't believe them. eventually more and more people started saying it, though i hadn't been presented with any evidence, I then started to believe that she had. So it didn't take evidence.
Sometimes, I see evidence published in peer-reviewed journals which strongly conflicts with my own experience and i don't change my mind.
can't really say why i change my mind. But in fairness, there has been no real discussion here from the atheists, just a repetition of the same point.
Neither requires unquestioning belief in the existence of one or more of an infinite number of speculated entities to do that thinking/magicking away for us.
This is not the point, as i have said before. I am not claiming that because we don't understand physics we must believe in God, rather I am saying because we don't understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists
Depends really, I've changed my mind about some things based on this discussion. [b]If by why not, you mean I haven't changed my mind about the existence or not of a God[/b]. I'd be surprised if you could point me to where i stated my beliefs in that respect. If you mean have i changed my mind about people who do not believe in a god? Then now, but in this discussion I have not heard anything new, nor has it been presented in any way other than that which I have heard in any number of arguments over the years. The 'there is no proof' argument is not new nor is it particularly complex.
Nope, not my intention in this discussion.
Nope, not my intention in this discussion.
Good! 'cos i doubt you would know what to change it from!
🙂
This is not the point, as i have said before. I am not claiming that because we don't understand physics we must believe in God, rather I am saying because we don't understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists
I would use the word 'believe' in this context personally as 'trust'. If my iPod turned into a block of cheese I would start doubting them. I would not use 'believe' as in 'I believe what physicists say about how silicon chips work' as I would for belief in deities.
I am saying because we don't understand physics, we have to believe Physics / Physicists
you don't 'have' to believe them. If it is a well documented theory and there is a highly-regarded paper/s on that theory you should (given you have the money and equipment) be able to recreate the experiment and see for yourself. In theory.
you don't 'have' to believe them. If it is a well documented theory and there is a highly-regarded paper/s on that theory you should (given you have the money and equipment) be able to recreate the experiment and see for yourself. In theory.
No, the effect on the world is predictable and repeatable, the understanding of the how of, Gravity for example, is the thing you have to believe or not
the effect on the world is predictable and repeatable
it is the predictable and repeatable that begin to help people understand the mechanisms by which things happen. Using your own example (for a different point) above when you could begin to predict that people would say Diana is dead, you changed your thinking (does that work as a point?). Maybe the 'answer' to gravity has not yet been solved but we certainly know a lot more about it by repeating experiments and observing the effects. We begin to understand what can be considered within a theory of gravity and what should not be.
we certainly know a lot more about it by repeating experiments and observing the effects.
erm...No.
erm...No.
Sorry, I don't believe you. Can you provide something to back up your assertation? 😀
If my iPod turned into a block of cheese I would start doubting them.
Which iPod do you have? I think mine is already made of cheese...
Is there anyway we can ever come to an agreement on this? Could we not just accept that some people believe in God / faith / religion / some sort of afterlife, and some people dont. Why the tedious, ongoing arguments? Or is the arguing the whole point?