Atheism the Belief

[HbroChris]

I posted my last before I read the last two pages of the thread, which go on to discuss a deterministic universe in some detail.

 

I accept that the scientific consensus is that the universe is non-deterministic because of apparent randomness observed at the quantum level.

 

I just can't help feeling that true randomness is unlikely.

 

E.g. Brownian motion was once assumed to be random, but really it was just an inability to perceive collisions.

 

I just can't shake the feeling that there's an underlying factor which appears as randomness.

 

I fully appreciate the irony of this coming dangerously close to a faith-based argument.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 16:19 ----------

 

Which god are you refering to?

 

Well, any really - it's the principle that I'm working with rather than a specific faith.

[mattleonard]

Yours is contrary to the best observational science we have, mine isn't... That doesn't guarantee that I'm correct by any means. But I can't understand how you've formed a contrary opinion on the basis of nothing and in defiance of what we can see happening.

 

I think there is a problem, and this is where the OP's use of the word belief comes in. I agree with your points about observational science, and yet it does require a "leap of faith" to conclude even that what is apparently an objective description of the state of things, is necessarily true, or that a seemingly objective result should be preferred; the best we can say is that aiming for objectivity is more likely to produce a sensible result and is more likely to reject nonsensical results. There are many people who would agree with all the observations you've mentioned, and yet have had subjective experiences which they feel requires a further explanation (in many cases God). Even the view that results such as scientific laws are even objective laws - rather than either patterns which happen by some fluke to fit with a coherent mathematics, or else the current brain state which seems rational to the person interpreting it (to take Descartes to the extreme) requires a degree of belief. We can make "reasonable" judgements as to how likely such conclusions would be, but those judgements themselves require us to rely on such beliefs.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 16:25 ----------

 

I just can't help feeling that true randomness is unlikely.

 

E.g. Brownian motion was once assumed to be random, but really it was just an inability to perceive collisions.

 

I just can't shake the feeling that there's an underlying factor which appears as randomness.

 

I think there's a difference in that brownian motion was considered random because it seemed random. Further inquiry by Einstein made clear that this wasn't the case. Where quantum effects differ is that there's no reason at all to think that such things would be happening randomly, except that taking the (despite my above post) reasonably deduced laws of physics and maths to their logical conclusions, they actually are random. If quantum effects were not random, the universe would make much less sense, rather than more.

[SnailyBoy]

Well, any really - it's the principle that I'm working with rather than a specific faith.

 

Yet there are specific claims made about the existance of specific gods. If I decide that the evidence provided doesn't support that claim. That makes me an atheist, doesn't it?

[HbroChris]

Yet there are specific claims made about the existance of specific gods. If I decide that the evidence provided doesn't support that claim. That makes me an atheist, doesn't it?

 

It means you believe there is no God. It doesn't mean you can prove there isn't one.

 

Call it what you like, but if you're using an evidence base, I would suggest you're an agnostic too. Possibly a selective one, if you're ruling them out one at a time!

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 16:39 ----------

 

I think there's a difference in that brownian motion was considered random because it seemed random. Further inquiry by Einstein made clear that this wasn't the case. Where quantum effects differ is that there's no reason at all to think that such things would be happening randomly, except that taking the (despite my above post) reasonably deduced laws of physics and maths to their logical conclusions, they actually are random. If quantum effects were not random, the universe would make much less sense, rather than more.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I quite follow. Could you try and explain your point again, please?

[MintPlumbing]

Yours is contrary to the best observational science we have, mine isn't... That doesn't guarantee that I'm correct by any means. But I can't understand how you've formed a contrary opinion on the basis of nothing and in defiance of what we can see happening.

 

My opinion is based on my own observations and thoughts, not the observations and thoughts of other people, if scientists believe the universe to be random how do they predict future events in the universe. A random universe could end tomorrow or go on for ever, it would be impossible to know its future.

[mattleonard]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I quite follow. Could you try and explain your point again, please?

 

Well, Brownian motion was concluded to be random because there wasn't any physical observations (or extrapolations from physical observations) which suggested a non-random cause. Quantum effects are concluded to be random because there are an abundance of physical observations and extrapolations which do point to a random cause.

[MintPlumbing]

You have your opinion, and we have ours. Ours is shared by the entire field of experts on the subject and is the result of decades or research, experimentation, maths, analysis and falsifiable predictions. Yours is a vague gut feeling you have.

Don't pretend they're equally likely.

They don't know enough to know one way or another, and are constantly changing their opinions on the subject, each new discovery leads them to even more questions, to believe they have all the answers is just a little naive of you.

[RootsBooster]

Yes, I think Huxley was the root source of my definition too.

 

Then you'll know that when he invented the word 'agnostic' to describe himself, he acknowledged he was also an atheist, as he was without belief in any gods. His introduction of the word 'agnostic' was meant to further expand on his position, not become something inbetween believing and not believing.

 

You don't need evidence that gods don't exist to simply be without belief in them. It's not the same as having the opposing belief that gods do not exist (although if you held this belief, you would automatically be without belief that they do exist)

Edited July 22, 2015 by RootsBooster

[mattleonard]

It means you believe there is no God. It doesn't mean you can prove there isn't one.

 

Call it what you like,

 

I'd be happy to go with "atheist" for that. I can only assume that RootsBooster's vehement insistence that atheists and agnostics are pretty much the same thing - or else that atheists have never thought hard enough about the question of whether there is a God or not - is an attempt to distance himself from the less agnostic wings of what tends to go by the name of atheism.

[RootsBooster]

It means you believe there is no God. It doesn't mean you can prove there isn't one.

 

Call it what you like, but if you're using an evidence base, I would suggest you're an agnostic too. Possibly a selective one, if you're ruling them out one at a time!

 

I'm an atheist but that's not a belief I hold

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2015 at 17:05 ----------

 

I'd be happy to go with "atheist" for that. I can only assume that RootsBooster's vehement insistence that atheists and agnostics are pretty much the same thing

I've never claimed any such thing

or else that atheists have never thought hard enough about the question of whether there is a God or not - is an attempt to distance himself from the less agnostic wings of what tends to go by the name of atheism.

I'm an outright atheist due to my absence of belief. It doesn't matter a fig to me what other types of atheists people are, that's their business.

Edited July 22, 2015 by RootsBooster