The God / Dawkins Delusion
- Thread starter polymorphic
- Start date
Umm...no. What is it with quantum mechanics? So many people seem to think you can start with the Schroedinger equation and derive the existence of ESP or some shit. How many "scientists who study quantum theory" do you actually know, by the way? I've studied it to postgraduate level and it hasn't turned me into a mystic - however I can vogue with the best of them.
Well if you've studied it to a post-graduate level then that means you probably have more knowledge about it than I do. However, I know a few people who have - one imparticular who is doing a masters in physics and quantum theory and is on some sort of world-class elite panel of researchers here at the university - and when I put all of this too him he agrees that the whole malarky proves only one thing - that the uncertainty there is at the highest level of science about the sources of energy and consciousness in our universe is matched only by the complexity and immaterial elegance that all the theory and observation suggests. You have said 'Umm..No' here, but what are you disagreeing with? When did I ever suggest that quantum theory can 'prove ESP'? I merely suggested that there is an uncertainty about these things that cannot be ignored (and therefore not discredited)
By saying this I was pointing out that atheists and cynics seem to be so certain that 'ESP' and other psychic phenomena doesn't exist, whereas the truth is that these things still cannot be totally disproved but merely speculated not to exist. In terms of non-locality and entanglement - as far as I know this is still an open issue - but if it were proven to be possible I don't see (nor do I care at all!) about whether or not it can 'support the existence of God', but certainly it could point to the possibility that consciousness was infinitely more complex and powerful than we have ever imagined - and therefore has possibilities of it's own that have been hinted at in other ways throughout the ages in poetry, mythology and religion.
Just to simplify that - from my perspective you seem to be overly concerned with 'the existence of God', whereas I don't really see it that way. 'God' as we know it is mostly a construct and only relates vaguely poetically/allegorically to the formation and circulation of energy and consciousness in our universe. I see that quantum theory and related fields, such as in the work of Penrose, as not being able to prove anything mystical, but certainly not being at all in opposition to the basic tenets of ancient mystical schools, but definitely in opposition to religious fundamentalism, new ageism and other plagues of the planet. Speaking of which, what to you think of Kapra?
Now I really don't understand you here. I've already stated that I'm not talking about scientists, but materialist atheists, and stated that quantum mechanics (Heisenberg, in other words) has discredited materialism. You are trying to disagree with me by saying exactly what I have said. If you haven't, please explain.
I see where your coming from but I do see it as being irrational. That's really a whole other argument but most of the time if a person of reason and science 'gets worked up' in this way it can either bolster their integrity or cloud their perception. In his case I see it as the latter.
The last question is - what is 'getting worked up'. What is the nature of emotional investment. The answer is simple - emotional investment is a form of certitude, just as territorial drive is a stabilizing instinct. When someone gets emotional invested in a rational argument they automatically begin to become irrational, precisely because they lose touch with the universal law of uncertainty. The closer one stays to the uncertain, the more he/she stays closer to the truth. These days that's the only thing I am truly certain of (yawn).
Thus for me it doesn't matter these days if it is someone proclaiming the truth of mystical realities, or atheists like Dawkins proclaiming they know the mechanical truth about the meaningless of life - or even myself when I realize I'm becoming zealous about my opinions - they're all bullshit artists, who have lost touch with being able to think properly, imprisoned by their constructs, and unable to remain truly open.
Last edited:
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
I'm going to have to nick a Richard Tyrone-Jones poem at this point.
Richard Dawkins
‘We can, then, with complete confidence, reject the third of our three hypotheses: the bonkers one.’ – Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale.
One day, Richard Dawkins was taking his wife up the arsehole.
Mid-thrust, he halted, mouthing:
‘What evolutionary purpose does this serve?’
Well, he couldn’t get hard again after that,
And his wife had to finish herself off.
Richard Dawkins
‘We can, then, with complete confidence, reject the third of our three hypotheses: the bonkers one.’ – Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale.
One day, Richard Dawkins was taking his wife up the arsehole.
Mid-thrust, he halted, mouthing:
‘What evolutionary purpose does this serve?’
Well, he couldn’t get hard again after that,
And his wife had to finish herself off.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Quantum mechanics describes very well the uncertainty in things like the energy levels of excited atoms or the positions of subatomic particles. Here you seem to be talking about uncertainty over concepts from the unexplained or paranormal - at least, that's what I got from your mention of non-local communication, which some people like to talk about in the context of ESP, telepathy or whathaveyou.
You said in an earlier post that "quantum physics had destroyed the boundary between rational science and mysticism". All I can say is: not from where I'm standing, it hasn't. Yes, there is "uncertainty" in quantum mechanics but it is a kind of uncertainty that is very precisely quantified and subject to rigorous physical laws, just like the behaviour of macroscopic objects that obey Newtonian mechanics.
It isn't magic, put it that way. Consciousness is another thing altogether and I think it's fair to say no-one understands where it comes from yet - explicitly quantum-mechanical phenomena may well have some part to play in it, who knows? I still don't think it lends any support to some ghosty 'pneuma' that is somehow generated by neurons and exists apart from the material universe. That's why I call myself a materialist, and I think quantum mechanics is in no way incompatible with it. It's still a materialistic framework, even though it radically redefines what we understand by "matter".
Ha, a mate of mine leant me The Tao Of Physics when I was a physics freshman, and I remember thinking it was kind of cool at the time...there are *some* analogies, I think, between certain ancient schools of metaphysics and the worldview of modern physics, but they are only analogies, and some people have tended to make too much out of them. As far I as I remember the latter part of the book goes into properly crazy territory (or maybe that's other books by Kapra) with regards to explaining alleged paranormal or mystical phenomena using particle physics or somesuch. I could be wrong though, it was ages ago that I read it.
Consciousness, I think, is incredibly powerful and complex anyway - it doesn't require weird quantum phenomena* for us to understand this. A modern computer would have seemed 'magic' to someone in the 19th or early 20th century, but computers are based on 20th century physics which has been well understood for a long time now (admittedly, the interpretation of the quantum phenomena by which computers (and, presumably, brain cells) work is an open question - but that's more a metaphysical problem than a physical one). And a motor car would have seemed 'magic' to someone in the middle ages, and firearms must have seemed 'magic' to pre-modern peoples during the age of European exploration/colonialism, and so on...as science and technology progress, things that once seemed inexplicable come into the domain of rational understanding. There's no reason to suppose consciousness won't go the same way one day, I think.
Then it sounds like we're using the word "materialist" differently. As I said above, I don't think there's anything in QM that requires a non-materialist position. I don't think an electron is in a radically different ontological category from a brick or a block of wood; it just has some properties that are unexpected if you've not come across them before because your intuitive understanding of what matter is is based on a familiarity with large objects like bricks. Whether there's a radical ontological difference between a brick and a living human brain, well that's a bit tougher - I think we'll be better able to examine that question when our understanding of neurology and consciousness is a lot more advanced than it is now.
*Specifically, maintaining an entangled state between two particles separated by any distance or a superposition in a system over any physical extent is extremely difficult, and can only happen in very specific laboratory conditions whereby interaction with any other particles is prevented. Typically, this is done in a lab by preparing entangled photons using lasers, precision mirrors and so on and then sending them down evacuated tubes. The warm, dense, messy environment inside a brain is the exact opposite of the kinds of conditions whereby entanglement or superposition can be maintained over anything other than atomic distances and time scales.
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
in fact, working in a scientific laboratory doing research provides all of those things (except perhaps "orientation", which is too broad/vague a term to know exactly what you mean by it w/o further elaboration).
also, why must atheism be a "project"? why can't just be, yunno, atheism? it doesn't follow at all that denying something means one has to then come up with an alternate thing to replace what's being denied.
Last edited:
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
also, all this about the infinite layers of simulacra & so forth is really just intellectual masturbation innit? entertaining if you're into that sort of thing but ultimately pretty irrelevant (tho I suppose the same could be said about most philosophy, so).
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
hear hear. not really a more point-blank way to say it.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-a famous science fiction author of the last century
This is a common mistake that is made again and again in arguments against atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god (or gods) as the creator of the universe based on insufficient evidence. Time and time again you see religious arguments (or even more ridiculous non-religious arguments) that begin at the conviction that all atheists have declared an absolute certainty in the non-existence of anything that can't poke them in the eye. This just isn't the case, as Mr. Tea has so dutifully pointed out.
EDIT: This actually is in response to a point made a few pages back, but for some reason the browser on my computer at work can't get its head around the "last page" button on this board. Apologies if the discussion has since moved on.
EDIT: This actually is in response to a point made a few pages back, but for some reason the browser on my computer at work can't get its head around the "last page" button on this board. Apologies if the discussion has since moved on.
Last edited:
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I don't see how this goes any further than the quotidian satisfaction of being gainfully employed whilst doing something one deems worthwhile. Even if there is something particularly elevating about working within the scientific community, these pleasures are, comparatively, available but to a fraction of us. How many years before a convert to science feels that they have drawn near to its centre? How many minutes before a religious convert can feel (rightly or wrongly) the same?
Not irrelevant if it makes atheism an irrational stance.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Either you're coming off peyote or .... I don't even know how to respond to this.
nomadthethird
more issues than Time mag
Yeah, there's this really strange tendency in religious apologists to make an argument against atheism/freethinking that goes like this:
Atheists (which is almost always shorthand for scientists or methodological naturalists) can't ever be Spock, because they're human. Humans all have emotions, which are irrational.* Therefore, no scientist can ever be rational, so all scientific conclusions are speculative and anything supernatural goes.
But it's a disingenuous and limpid argument. Scientists and atheists are the first to admit humans are shitty thinkers and that we have to overcome all kinds of in-built cognitive limitations and biases in order to get any solid, rational work done. They also admit that much of their work is speculation: in fact, they have a special term for this, "hypotheses". The way rational discourse and discovery are accomplished by scientists is methodological and community-based: peer review is the gold standard, and the scientific method the model for because without it, individual scientists ARE practically useless, BECAUSE of things like observation bias. This is also why experimental results are only as good as they are able to be replicated.
But I get the sense that the people who don't already understand this probably won't be persuaded, and it's not really worth reasoning out.
*Which, by the way, I don't grant. There are plenty of times when it's perfectly rational to react to x or y with a given emotion. Emotions are in fact adaptive, and limbic activity can and often does serve as a survival strategy.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
well, you'll note I didn't say science was particularly elevating or noble, merely that it can offer the same kind of fulfillment that people claim religion does. you'll also note that this was a direct response to someone who specifically said science could not do so, rather than a general claim about its superiority. that said, I do believe science is unique in the sense that it's the only human pursuit which is about the addition of new knowledge to the human race (that's science broadly, including both the hard & the social sciences, as well as mathematics), while everything else either describes, interprets, or applies what is already known or believed. that's "unique", mind, not "better".
the point that only a relative few can actually work in science is freely taken, nor did I say otherwise (again, this was a direct refutation), but science is hardly the only secular pursuit that offers benefits comparable to those often ascribed to religion.
what is the center of science? what is the center of religion, or a particular religion? your temporal comparison is meaningless. plus, if religion is so accessible, why do people spend their whole lives trying to become enlightened, or understand the Kabbalah, or etc? why do so many people switch religions at some point in their lives? perhaps the answer is that religion (and thus religious ecstasy), like science, or anything, is more accessible to some & less to others.
(there are no "converts" to science in the same sense that are to religions, which I'm sure you know. this tactic of attempting to equivocate science as merely another religion is very overused and very, very wearisome.)
if it did, but it doesn't. not at all. not atheism, nor any theistic stance either. everything you've said can be boiled down "it's likely, because". I dunno why you're acting like you've introduced an earth-shattering argument here; it's an idea at least as old as the allegory of the cave, and probably much older still, and interesting thought exercise & that's about it. the other v. obvious point is, who cares? for the sake of argument let's assume our reality is artificial, the contents of a computer chip. so what?
I have a hard time believing you're not just having a laugh but hey, whatever.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
t'were ever thus
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Yes, but I don't think that it (nor other mundane activities) can offer the same kinds of fulfilment that religion can (they can replace only some of the activities that religion enables - the ones that involve socialising, mainly). Many up-thread have pointed out what believers feel religion offers that other activities can't.
To justifiably feel that you're getting the 'straight dope' in science takes smarts and years of hard graft; a religious n00b can talk to God or be visited by the supernatural from the off.
And if the recent convert doesn't get his unearthly moment early on (the point is that many do), they are welcome to stay within the community for as long as it takes.
In science, if you don't come up with the goods on time, you're out on your ear - science is only useful to you for as long as you're useful to it.
I wasn't trying to make a cheap point there - by 'convert' I only meant someone who had begun scientific work voluntarily, having been doing something else previously.
You need to refute what follows the 'because' to make it seem less likely - at the moment, the simulation argument gives the probability of the existence of a designer/creator/'god' for our universe at 20% (Bostrom's figure). No-one's beaten him down in the literature so, if we want to be rational, that's what we should work with (P(no creator/'god') = 80% is not good enough for atheism).
Well, use your imagination - for one, it means that there may be a reason for the existence of the perceptible universe and its contents.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
What I find funny is that Spock and Data are very often obviously discomfited or even downright pissed off.
Last edited:
matt b
Indexing all opinion
Probably because they're too busy pissing themselves with laughter.
Oh hang on, I've just had a thought!
I think there is a 19% chance of the existance of a designer/creator/god.
I think this designer creator god looks like a massive pink elephant.
If you disagree, you are not being rational, as according to my made up figures, you only have an 81% chance of being correct.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
In full agreement here, SB. Many people don't seem to realise (or willfully ignore) that the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" are not equivalent (whereas a disagreement between two theists will typically involve contradictory statements of an equivalent nature, e.g. "God incarnated Himself on Earth as a man" vs. "God exclusively revealed His word to man through his prophet Mohammed"). The reason is just that there is no good evidence that God exists. Bertrand Russell makes the argument even more explicit by postulating a teapot in space out beyond the Earth's orbit: if someone were to claim that such a thing exists, of course it is impossible to disprove the claim; but any rational person would assume the burden of proof lies on the teapot-ist, not on the teapot-sceptic, and would be justified in dismissing the claim as nonsense, pending any future discovery that might provide evidence for the teapot.
That Slate piece is attrocious, by the way - just recycling the tired old chestnut about how atheism is "a kind of faith", blah blah, and also ventures intrepidly into A-level philosophy territory by asserting the "logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing". Apart from the bleedingly obvious point that this rather puts any putative Supreme Creator in a rather dubious position, it's been rigorously proven to be untrue. The author even, laughably, claims not to find arguments about "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities" very "convincing" - if I may go out on a limb here, maybe that's because you're not a physicist or cosmologist? Does he also doubt evolution by natural selection because he's not a geneticist?
Last edited: