Question for athiests/agnostics

[jmac2112]

Hi,

I'm new to this forum, so my apologies if this horse has been beaten to death. What is the FIRST thought that occurs to you when faced with the seeming orderliness and purposefulness of the world? Not to put words into anyone's mouth, but how would you complete the sentence "Yes, there is much order evident in the workings of reality, but....."

I'm hoping to get single sentences for answers, but feel free to write a book if necessary!

Thanks,

John

[Lionspoint]

pattern searching is in no way a purely human endeavor. And the idea that the universe obeys a set of laws given by an almighty creator is currently unfounded. While even basic ideas such as "animals eat plants" is questionable, why should our species, who has almost no practical knowledge of even our neighbor solar system (let alone thirty-seven million solar systems in 89 galaxies away) even begin to make assumptions based upon the universe? Why, and on what basis, would any person make a claim with regard to our known existence? And the more interesting question is why would a person attempt to understand the implications of life after death before understanding the implication of life in life?

[daedalus 2.0]

While I agree with your first two sentences, and the last, I have issue with the others.

I agree we don't KNOW what is happening light years away, but we can safely assume that the universe operates under the basic Natural Laws that are in effect here on Earth and in space. in fact, much of our science is based on this assumption, and this assumption has been verified to a degree that would make even the most extreme skeptic take a breath.

I think there are things that are knowable, and the scientific process is, to date, the best way of discovering these things.

I caution against extreme skepticism.

But, i realize the spirit of what you are trying to say, and generally agree (with the caveat I have laid out).

[Lionspoint]

I think there are things that are knowable, and the scientific process is, to date, the best way of discovering these things.

I caution against extreme skepticism.

What you said is true and I do not think it is wise for a person to predicate their life to such philosophy. Once understood, ponder it no more. There's no future in it.

It has been considered, for example, as to what it would take to make a person become a Christian. Rational people would demand evidence. And I have given it considerable thought with this conclusion: The rapture. If millions of people all went away like in Left Behind I would be going to my knees really quick with a huge apology to god. This does not mean that I'm going to dwell upon this any further. I have drawn a conclusion and will think about it no more. There is far more important things going on in this world that warrant much more attention than questions of this nature.

So just as we could be wrong about god (and we could), we may be wrong about things we "know" now. I simply assert that no being should claim to know anything until that being knows everything. I would rather not explain this now. And in fact just do a search on the guy I quote below and see what he said on the matter. He has more cred than I do.


The only true knowledge is in knowing you know nothing ~ Socrates

[jmac2112]

All,

Well, I’ve had some time to sift through the responses to my formulations of non-theistic principals, and I’m ready to have another go at it. In case this has not become clear, I am not attempting to formulate a non-theist creed, but to see if I can come up with some propositions that most non-theists can accept, or at least not reject out of hand.

I think it might be best to take up one issue at a time, but I’m going to throw two of them out there anyway. It has occurred to me that I should take nothing for granted, so I am wondering whether we can all agree on what is traditionally called the principle of non-contradiction, i.e “a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.” So, for instance, I cannot exist and not exist at the same time, a figure cannot be a square and a circle at the same time, a pencil cannot be four inches long and six inches long at the same time, and so on. This principle has traditionally been considered the foundation of logic and the basis of all theoretical thought (thinking about what “is”, as opposed to practical thinking, which is about what “ought” to be). If we have a disagreement about this, I’m not sure I will know how to proceed.

One of the things we were discussing earlier was the concept of order. Everyone seemed to believe that there is such a thing as order, but there seemed to be some disagreement as to what the word means. In such cases, I usually turn to my dictionaries, which are supposed to tell me what most people think about the meaning of a given word. Each dictionary gave me about twenty definitions, but here are the ones that bear on our discussion:

1) the sequence or arrangement of things or events; series; succession

2) a fixed or definite plan; system; law of arrangement

3) a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group

4) a condition of methodical or prescribed arrangement among component parts, such that the proper functioning or appearance is achieved; a state of sound readiness

5) systematic arrangement and design

It is interesting to note that some of the definitions seem to deal more with the condition of things as we find them, and others seem to deal with the condition of things as we make them. The latter definitions either state or imply intention, design, and purpose. The responses that I got to my earlier formulation seem to me to indicate that non-theists believe that human beings are capable of creating order that is meaningful and purposeful, as when someone builds a car or a computer, but that any “order” that we find in the world that is not due to the action of man does not imply intention, design, purpose, or meaningfulness. This seems to be what one of our interlocutors meant when he charged me with the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Am I on the right track?

Thanks,

John

[jmac2112]

Anyone?

So lonely....must reach out.....

[Goat]

Anyone?

So lonely....must reach out.....

Well, when talking 'order' and 'chaos', what were YOU talking about? I think the whole 'order /chaos' when talking about entropy is just a red herring. Unless you have a physics background, and can talk about 'disoranaganized states' on the molecular level, it is far more useful to think of it in the form of usable vs unusable energy.

[daedalus 2.0]

Why do I feel that this is an ID thread in the making?

[jmac2112]

Why do I feel that this is an ID thread in the making?

Although I really haven't looked into what Intelligent Design is all about, I don't think it should come as a shock that a theist might believe in an intelligence behind the cosmos. But right now, I'm trying to figure out the non-theist definitions of some key words.

Well, when talking 'order' and 'chaos', what were YOU talking about? I think the whole 'order /chaos' when talking about entropy is just a red herring. Unless you have a physics background, and can talk about 'disoranaganized states' on the molecular level, it is far more useful to think of it in the form of usable vs unusable energy.

Hmmm....I asked two questions, and I don't think this addresses either one. In a nutshell, my questions were:

1) Do non-theists (All? Some? Even one?) adhere to the principle of non-contradiction? Does it apply to some things and not to others?

2) Do non-theists hold that the word "order" is being used equivocally by theists in the manner described? In other words, do you think that the word "order" has meaning when applied to the products of human intelligence (cars, computers, lasagna, whatever), but that it has a different meaning, or no meaning at all, when applied to naturally occurring systems (the human body, trees, natural selection, the laws of physics, etc.)? Do you even object to my using the phrase "naturally occurring systems"? I can't think of another way to put it, but if non-theists didn't know what theists mean by applying the word "order" to such things, then we would not be having this conversation. You must have some concept of what we are talking about, and some words that describe it.

Thanks,

John

[Voco]

It is important to remeber that we, as participants in the universe, operate under the same laws as everything else. We have no source of data outside the universe to compare it to or to base our thought processes upon. As such, our perceptions of what "order" is are entirely dependant upon the order we observe around us.

To turn around and point to the very things that we base our conception of order, ( knowingly or not), upon is akin to pointing to a real lavander sprig and saying "That lavander is lavander-colored! What are the chances of THAT, eh? But as we all know this is beacause we based the color lavander on the flower, not a coincidence at all.

Futhermore, if we assert that the universe is so well ordered, we remove any potential examples of disorder, and with them all significance the stament has.

To twist an example often used by theists, we can observe that a painting is deliberatly organized becasue it stand in contrast to the disorder exhibited by the minerals not processed into paints and paintings. If we assert the whole world, (and thus these unprocessed minerals), also demonstrates organization, we can no longer claim that the painting holds special significance by virtue of its organization.

Basically, if everything in the universe looks designed, we can not come up with any example of what something undesigned would look like. How are we, then, can we claim to determine what looks designed? Simply turst that should an undesigned entity (impossible, assuming no creator other than God and his own creations) came into existence, we would recognize it?

This is part of why any appearance of orderliness in the universe does little to sway atheists.

[jmac2112]

Thank you, Voco! I may not agree with you, but at least I understand your answer. I'll ponder that and get back to you. In the meantime, did you have any thoughts concerning my first question?

Thanks,

John