Atheism is DEAD!

[GostHacked]

Ah, that's the problem. When you include grave goods or some form of mortuary 'dressing' are you preparing the person for the after-life?

We can speculate, but nothing more. And grave dressings in this case might not mean that they believe in an afterlife. But they do know that the one who died, is not coming back.

If death was final, one would think that they'd just toss the body or eat it and spare a day or two of hunting so they could ponder their existence. (and there is some evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism so...)

Death is final. I have had no proof shown to me that would say the opposite.

The point being is that from evidence we have of human behaviour with the grave goods and the mortuary dressing and all of that, is that this was in preparation for an after-life or something 'beyond.' There isn't any reason to suggest that early humans did not have the same ideas, even if they were rudimentary in that wee frontal lobe of theirs. There are some folks who believe that we are hardwired for religious or spiritual thought even as an abstraction.

Even if they did think that there was, it kind of shows that deities are man made. I doubt we are hardwired to believe in the religion or spirituality or a god. I will say that you are conditioned to believe in a deity.

When you watch the Discovery documentaries on chimps, do you see them without leisure time and constantly looking for food? Hardly. And they spend their time in many social activities like play and grooming and settling differences. The common reference today was that early man of the hunter-gatherer type had plenty of leisure time for other activities besides subsistence. No duobt there was social interaction, playing and the settling of differences.

Animals do play. That I won't deny. But all the other primates are still surviving first, playing second.

[wyly]

Animals do play. That I won't deny. But all the other primates are still surviving first, playing second.

even play is not really play...it's honing survival skills, practice...

[GostHacked]

even play is not really play...it's honing survival skills, practice...

Good point. Much of the playing is sorting out the chain of command.

[davidmabus0202]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4C_tSMqS810/SpSiDuqTdII/AAAAAAAAEik/V4Wl83kNQEk/s400/Richard+Dawkins+and+atheism+and+atheist+and+new+atheist+...JPG

hah...I wonder who is the *DELUDED* one...

ever hear of HUBRIS, Mr. Dawkins?

Edited December 22, 2009 by davidmabus0202

[Shwa]

And grave dressings in this case might not mean that they believe in an afterlife.

It might not in the same sense that grave goods in an Egyptian grave is no indication that they believed in an afterlife. Except that they wrote that they did. As did many others cultures. So, since early man had similar grave offerings to human cultures that did believe in an afterlife, there is evidence that early man had similar beliefs. Yes it is speculation, but not to the point where anyone coming across such evidence in a dig would be surprised to any great degree. In many cases it is successfully predicted that such grave offerings will be found.

Even if they did think that there was, it kind of shows that deities are man made.

That is entirely beside the point. The poster contends that atheism preceeded religion.

I doubt we are hardwired to believe in the religion or spirituality or a god.

Ah, that is the next battleground so prepare yourself - the 'other side' is arming themselves to take religion to the neuro-arena.

If religion is man-made, then what is the genesis of it, so to speak? It is a social construct and whether we are hard-wired or conditioned, it likely has its roots very deep in our social capabilities. Most forms of higher primates are very social animals.

But all the other primates are still surviving first, playing second.

But that is beside the point, which was the issue of leisure time which, by all indicators, they had plenty of in which to ponder their universe.

[GostHacked]

It might not in the same sense that grave goods in an Egyptian grave is no indication that they believed in an afterlife. Except that they wrote that they did. As did many others cultures. So, since early man had similar grave offerings to human cultures that did believe in an afterlife, there is evidence that early man had similar beliefs. Yes it is speculation, but not to the point where anyone coming across such evidence in a dig would be surprised to any great degree. In many cases it is successfully predicted that such grave offerings will be found.

The Egyptians can hardly be considered early man. They had a working language, and writing a whole society we can look at.

That is entirely beside the point. The poster contends that atheism preceeded religion.

I'd say they were born at the same time. As soon as religion was invented, atheism would have been born at the same time, because not all would share the same view or ideology. This is why I will say religion is man made, and so is god.

Ah, that is the next battleground so prepare yourself - the 'other side' is arming themselves to take religion to the neuro-arena.

Not worried about that anytime soon. Real science will show the way.

If religion is man-made, then what is the genesis of it, so to speak? It is a social construct and whether we are hard-wired or conditioned, it likely has its roots very deep in our social capabilities. Most forms of higher primates are very social animals.

That I cannot determine. Religion has evolved over the years and may not even resemble what was said to be religion when looking at early man.

But that is beside the point, which was the issue of leisure time which, by all indicators, they had plenty of in which to ponder their universe.

Well, go study them and get back to me. I doubt they ponder their existence.

[Shwa]

Well, go study them and get back to me. I doubt they ponder their existence.

No need for me to go study, evidence indicates that they did ponder their existence and likely in their leisure time too.

I'd say they were born at the same time. As soon as religion was invented, atheism would have been born at the same time, because not all would share the same view or ideology.

So god/(s)/religion would have had to be invented first since atheism needs something to deny. Is this what you are saying?

[ToadBrother]

Many medical discoveries are accepted long before any mechanism is found. HIV-AIDS is one that immediately comes to mind. Are you someone who rejected the idea that HIV could cause AIDS simply because the mechanism was unknown?

What was accepted was that there was something that attacked the immune system

You were asking for evidence - not proof. Coorelation is evidence.

No, coorelation alone is not evidence. There are other explanations that could be provided for your prayer hypothesis. To do the study properly you must consider those and, most importantly, suggest how any one of them could be falsified. You can't falsify a supernatural cause. Even if you find a naturalistic cause, it does not falsify the supernatural one. For instance, if a killer says "Angels did it and framed me", you can't actually falsify his claim. What you can do is demonstrate the preponderance of evidence shows he did it, but there is no epistemological way of actually showing what he claims to be false.

That's the difference between science and the supernatural, and why your deity claim, even if true, would not be scientific.

But any rate, I never meant to suggest my atheism was scientific. Science, by its nature, is a-theistic, not atheistic. In other words, it is agnostic on the existence of the supernatural, and in particular in the existence of God. Atheism cannot be demonstrated by science because it makes a fundamentally unfalsifiable assertion, that there is no such entity. By the same token, theism is also unscientific. Anyone who tries to apply science to the question of God's existence, one way or the other, has left any realm that methodological naturalism, that is, science, can broach.

[ToadBrother]

Animals do play. That I won't deny. But all the other primates are still surviving first, playing second.

For most of human history, even after we developed the clear ability for symbolic cognition, we spent most of our time surviving. I think your mistake is in trying to find a line in the sand that does not in fact exist.

[GostHacked]

For most of human history, even after we developed the clear ability for symbolic cognition, we spent most of our time surviving. I think your mistake is in trying to find a line in the sand that does not in fact exist.

It's a counter argument against Shwa. I have no idea where that line would be.

Shwa

So god/(s)/religion would have had to be invented first since atheism needs something to deny. Is this what you are saying?

I am saying they were done pretty much at the same time. I know this is where you are gonna say 'GOTCHA', because I claimed atheism came before religion. If they had the capacity to ponder a god, they had the capacity to make a conclusion about god. Some would say yes, some would say no. Which proves to me that god is man made.

Edited December 22, 2009 by GostHacked

[ToadBrother]

It's a counter argument against Shwa. I have no idea where that line would be.

I think part of the problem is that all the hominids except for us died out, so we have a bit of a disconnect. Still, a significant amount of research into animal cognition demonstrates that a lot of what we consider "human" is found among our closest relatives. There is evidence that suggests the capacity for syntactical communications may exist outside our species, and if there's the neural hardware for that, I wonder if we're not looking at where "higher" functions like symbolism and full language come from.

Shwa

I am saying they were done pretty much at the same time. I know this is where you are gonna say 'GOTCHA', because I claimed atheism came before religion. If they had the capacity to ponder a god, they had the capacity to make a conclusion about god. Some would say yes, some would say no. Which proves to me that god is man made.

I honestly doubt that Og and Trog got into a deep philosophical discussion on the existence of God. I imagine, like most things, belief simply coevolved with other facets of early society. Atheism, as we know it, is a fairly modern notion.

[GostHacked]

I honestly doubt that Og and Trog got into a deep philosophical discussion on the existence of God. I imagine, like most things, belief simply coevolved with other facets of early society. Atheism, as we know it, is a fairly modern notion.

I would not say it's new at all. I will say it is more noticeable today. And it sure ain't dead!

[Riverwind]

What was accepted was that there was something that attacked the immune system

Yet without evidence people were willing to accept that HIV was a plausible cause and make government policy decisions based on that.

No, correlation alone is not evidence. There are other explanations that could be provided for your prayer hypothesis.

There are really only two explanations: a 'biochemical effect' or a 'supernatural effect'. In the experiment I described the control group would have been offered non-deity centered therapy which presumably should be able to invoke the same 'biochemical effect' if there was one. One could repeat the experiment many times with different therapies to see if the deity effect could be matched. If it could be then the deity hypothesis I described would be falsified. If it could not then the you would have evidence supporting a deity. It would not be enough to conclusively make that claim.

My point is our knowledge of the physical world has advanced to the point where any deity that direct intervenes in the physical world can be reasonably ruled out. However, our knowledge of the human brain is not sufficient to explain all that we humans experience as consciousness/self-awareness. i.e. is this self-awareness nothing but the result of a biochemical machine or is there a non-physical element (i.e. a soul). Perhaps we will eventually be able to show that it is all a biochemical machine but until then a hypothesis that a diety can interact with our conciousnesses is as valid as the biochemical machine hypothesis.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[Shwa]

And it sure ain't dead!

Here is where we agree! :lol:

[ToadBrother]

Yet without evidence people were willing to accept that HIV was a plausible cause and make government policy decisions based on that.

It was a most likely cause by the mid-1980s. However, certain aspects of the disease were clear even without a positive ID as to the cause. I see no reason why one would leap to the conclusion that because people essentially feel better, some neurological explanation is ignored in favor of God.

There are really only two explanations: a 'biochemical effect' or a 'supernatural effect'.

Only one of those explanations can, in fact, be dealt with scientifically.

In the experiment I described the control group would have been offered non-deity centered therapy which presumably should be able to invoke the same 'biochemical effect' if there was one. One could repeat the experiment many times with different therapies to see if the deity effect could be matched. If it could be then the deity hypothesis I described would be falsified. If it could not then the you would have evidence supporting a deity. It would not be enough to conclusively make that claim.

No it couldn't be falsified. How could you? You can't even falsify "angels killed that person instead of me."

My point is our knowledge of the physical world has advanced to the point where any deity that direct intervenes in the physical world can be reasonably ruled out.

And you would be wrong, simply because you're confusing parsimony with falsification. That one has a naturalistic explanation for something does not rule out divine intervention, I'm afraid. This is why science does not deal in the supernatural. Parsimony is meaningless the minute you invoke God.

However, our knowledge of the human brain is not sufficient to explain all that we humans experience as consciousness/self-awareness. i.e. is this self-awareness nothing but the result of a biochemical machine or is there a non-physical element (i.e. a soul). Perhaps we will eventually be able to show that it is all a biochemical machine but until then a hypothesis that a diety can interact with our conciousnesses is as valid as the biochemical machine hypothesis.

This is nothing more than a God-of-the-gaps argument. Our knowledge cannot absolutely rule out that Thor does not cause lightning bolts or that a dozen invisible massless faeries live in your left arm pit.

Edited December 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

I would not say it's new at all. I will say it is more noticeable today. And it sure ain't dead!

I don't think atheism actually existed as a coherent notion prior to the Enlightenment. Atheism, at least in the West, prior to that, usually meant a denial of God, despite the fact that many of those who were declared atheists in fact usually denied a personal god.

[bloodyminded]

This is nothing more than a God-of-the-gaps argument. Our knowledge cannot absolutely rule out that Thor does not cause lightning bolts or that a dozen invisible massless faeries live in your left arm pit.

True. I note how the argument is always presented as a single entity, as if monotheism were the "most likley" scenario.

Why not faeries? Multiple gods? Or why not Malevolent Design?

Edited December 22, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Riverwind]

Only one of those explanations can, in fact, be dealt with scientifically.

How? In the absence of an alternate hypothesis it is the only hypothesis and therefore no matter what evidence is found it will be still be presumed to be true and therefore unfalsifiable.

No it couldn't be falsified. How could you?

The hypothesis I described would be falsified. Perhaps I could come up with another hypothesis involving a deity, perhaps not. But that would not alter the fact that the original hypothesis was falsified.

This is why science does not deal in the supernatural. Parsimony is meaningless the minute you invoke God.

It is meaningful if you clearly define the constraints as I did. I did not leave wiggle room that would have allowed me to move the goal posts. I stated an effect which I believe exists and described how it could be tested experimentally.

This is nothing more than a God-of-the-gaps argument.

God-in-the-gaps argument is no different from the a purely physical-explanation-will-eventually-be-found argument. They can be both invoked in a scientific or in a dogmatic way. The athetist position that only physical hypothesis can be considered is a dogmatic and non-scientific position. Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind

[GostHacked]

True. I note how the argument is always presented as a single entity, as if monotheism were the "most likley" scenario.

Why not faeries? Multiple gods? Or why not Malevolent Design?

It's the same approach. No matter if you are dealing with one deity or multiple deities. When it comes down to it, you are trying to scientifically prove something that is supernatural.

Toadbrother

I don't think atheism actually existed as a coherent notion prior to the Enlightenment. Atheism, at least in the West, prior to that, usually meant a denial of God, despite the fact that many of those who were declared atheists in fact usually denied a personal god.

Good point. I would assume small pockets of unbelievers existed.

View PostToadBrother, on 22 December 2009 - 10:14 AM, said:

Only one of those explanations can, in fact, be dealt with scientifically.

How? In the absence of an alternate hypothesis it is the only hypothesis and therefore no matter what evidence is found it will be still be presumed to be true and therefore unfalsifiable.

The supernatural cannot be proved or disproved through science (science deals with the natural world). This is why it is not falsifiable through science.

God-in-the-gaps argument is no different from the a purely physical-explanation-will-eventually-be-found argument. They can be both invoked in a scientific or in a dogmatic way. The athetist position that only physical hypothesis can be considered is a dogmatic and non-scientific position.

It is different though. God of the gaps claims that god is there because science is not. Science is working towards filling in those gaps with scientific knowledge. One is looking for answers while one says what the answer is.

[Riverwind]

The supernatural cannot be proved or disproved through science (science deals with the natural world). This is why it is not falsifiable through science.

It depends entirely on where one draws the boundaries of the natural world. As I mentioned above scientists have no problem postulating multiple universes suspended in 5 dimensional space as part of the 'natural world'. It does not take much to extend the natural world to include overlapping universes that intersect in the minds of intelligent beings. The question becomes how does one design experiments to determine if the hypothesis has merit.

It is different though. God of the gaps claims that god is there because science is not. Science is working towards filling in those gaps with scientific knowledge. One is looking for answers while one says what the answer is.

Again - it depends on how one frames the question. If one says 'god did it' and stop looking for answers then you are right. But if one simply presents the deity as a hypothesis which has some useful predictive power (e.g. people that believe in a deity are more likely to overcome psychological issues) then it is just as scientific as a biochemical hypothesis.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think part of the problem is that all the hominids except for us died out, so we have a bit of a disconnect. Still, a significant amount of research into animal cognition demonstrates that a lot of what we consider "human" is found among our closest relatives. There is evidence that suggests the capacity for syntactical communications may exist outside our species, and if there's the neural hardware for that, I wonder if we're not looking at where "higher" functions like symbolism and full language come from.

Not to nitpick but a hominid is any member of the "great apes" so it would include chimps and the like. I think you ment hominan, or you could have just said human (Homo).

Riverwind

How? In the absence of an alternate hypothesis it is the only hypothesis and therefore no matter what evidence is found it will be still be presumed to be true and therefore unfalsifiable.

If that were true there would never be any scientific progress. Also since the second explanation is supernatural it is irrelevant in science. Science only deals with the natural.

The hypothesis I described would be falsified. Perhaps I could come up with another hypothesis involving a deity, perhaps not. But that would not alter the fact that the original hypothesis was falsified.

A diety is supernatural therefore science can make no comment. In any event even if it showed results you could easily say it was the placebo effect. How are you going to control for that?

It is meaningful if you clearly define the constraints as I did. I did not leave wiggle room that would have allowed me to move the goal posts. I stated an effect which I believe exists and described how it could be tested experimentally.

It doesn't matter, unless you have suddenly turned your God into a natural part of the world and not supernatural, science cannot comment on it.

God-in-the-gaps argument is no different from the a purely physical-explanation-will-eventually-be-found argument. They can be both invoked in a scientific or in a dogmatic way.

How is "Goddidit" the same as "I don't know but I'm sure we can figure it out"?

The athetist position that only physical hypothesis can be considered is a dogmatic and non-scientific position.

That's not just the atheists position it is the position of science. Science is about the natural world and what is testable and observable. Everything in the natural world has a reason that can be explained if it doesn't than science becomes useless. So how do you explain stuff in the natural world? With the scientific method which requires observable, empirical and measurable evidence. Can you think of anything that fits into that definition that isn't physical?

Edited December 22, 2009 by TrueMetis

[wyly]

Ah, that's the problem. When you include grave goods or some form of mortuary 'dressing' are you preparing the person for the after-life? If death was final, one would think that they'd just toss the body or eat it and spare a day or two of hunting so they could ponder their existence. (and there is some evidence of Neanderthal cannibalism so...)

The point being is that from evidence we have of human behaviour with the grave goods and the mortuary dressing and all of that, is that this was in preparation for an after-life or something 'beyond.' There isn't any reason to suggest that early humans did not have the same ideas, even if they were rudimentary in that wee frontal lobe of theirs. There are some folks who believe that we are hardwired for religious or spiritual thought even as an abstraction.

When you watch the Discovery documentaries on chimps, do you see them without leisure time and constantly looking for food? Hardly. And they spend their time in many social activities like play and grooming and settling differences. The common reference today was that early man of the hunter-gatherer type had plenty of leisure time for other activities besides subsistence. No duobt there was social interaction, playing and the settling of differences.

you're being selective in your starting date for humanity....Neanderthals? why not homo erectus or homo habilus?...if god made man in his own image was it homo habilus?...if someone wants to presume that even animals/hominids with no or little frontal lobe development can concieve of a god how do those who believe in god justify killing and eating those animals?...

an abstract conception such as gods and demons can only come after the development of a frontal lobe...man created god, god/s did not create men...

Edited December 22, 2009 by wyly

[GostHacked]

It depends entirely on where one draws the boundaries of the natural world.

I though we were not going to be moving goalposts?

As I mentioned above scientists have no problem postulating multiple universes suspended in 5 dimensional space as part of the 'natural world'.

Well, the multiverse is still a hypothetical scenario. The math kind of supports it, but to make it a working scientific theory, a lot more work still needs to be done. This is theoretical physics.

It does not take much to extend the natural world to include overlapping universes that intersect in the minds of intelligent beings. The question becomes how does one design experiments to determine if the hypothesis has merit.

There is a difference between natural and supernatural, just as there is a difference between proven science and theoretical sciences. Most of those pondering the multiverse are simply pondering. There is still no tangible proof that they exist. Again, the math kind of shows it to be true, but again, more work needs to be done.

Again - it depends on how one frames the question. If one says 'god did it' and stop looking for answers then you are right.

More often than not, that is where it ends when discussing this with believers.

But if one simply presents the deity as a hypothesis which has some useful predictive power (e.g. people that believe in a deity are more likely to overcome psychological issues) then it is just as scientific as a biochemical hypothesis.

You still can't prove that the deity exists. Simply calling out his name is not sufficient. And it is not as scientific as using biochemistry. Biochemistry is part of the natural world and natural world sciences. Saying that the deity has useful predictive power does not prove the deity exists. Having others believe in the deity's supernatural predictive power is not proof that the deity exists, let alone the predictive process. You still need to show/prove the deity exists before you can surmise the deity's power.

[bloodyminded]

It's the same approach. No matter if you are dealing with one deity or multiple deities. When it comes down to it, you are trying to scientifically prove something that is supernatural.

Oh, I agree with you, believe me.

All I'm saying--using multiple gods or malevolent gods or what have you--is that those arguing against your position are failing by their OWN standards.

But yes, it's a side-issue.

[Riverwind]

I though we were not going to be moving goalposts?

You missed the posts earlier where I stated that my "system" for discussion of a diety include possibility of alternate planes/universes that we could not perceive.

Well, the multiverse is still a hypothetical scenario. The math kind of supports it, but to make it a working scientific theory, a lot more work still needs to be done. This is theoretical physics.

Not all science can proceed based on mathematical analyses. Biology is a science where math outside of statistical analyses has little role in developing theories. You can't use the lack of math as a basis to reject a hypothesis.

You still can't prove that the deity exists.

I am not claiming a deity can be proven to exist. I am saying the existence of a deity could be inferred by developing testable hypotheses based on the presumption that one does exist. This is a valid scientific approach that is used all of the time.

No more than one needs to prove the existance of dark matter before one can surmise about its effects.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Riverwind