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

[jmac2112]

This is a test. I just wrote a long reply only to have it disappear when I hit "submit".

John

[jmac2112]

My posts have generated quite a few responses! I can't reply to each one individually, but I'd like to try to summarize what I've read so far. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that in my second post, I mistakenly attributed Zzyzx's post to Wrekk and vice versa. Anyway, my purpose in asking my original question was to try to determine the exact point(s) at which theists and non-theists part company. Assuming that we are all human, and that we all perceive the same reality with the same senses, what are the principles upon which we base our thinking? From what I have read here, and from what I have gathered from other conversations, I would state some of the non-theist principles as follows:

I. The concept of order is meaningless, since order implies purpose, and purpose implies intelligence.

II. To exist is to be perceptible to the senses.

III. To quantify a thing in every way is to know everything there is to know about it. To the extent that we are ignorant of anything, it is only because we have not yet been able to quantify it and reduce its workings to mathematical formulae.

IV. An infinite chain of causation is possible and necessary. E.g. if the big bang started the universe rolling, then there must have been something that caused it, and there must have been something that caused that, and so on ad infinitum.

OR

V. The concept of causation is meaningless, since causation cannot be perceived by the senses (I think that was Hume's position).


I would like to know if these formulations are accurate, and if not, how should I change them. I would not want to argue against a straw man.


Thanks,

John

[daedalus 2.0]

I. The concept of order is meaningless, since order implies purpose, and purpose implies intelligence.

No, order is quite meaningful in a sense of the word. But it doesn't imply intelligence, it implies order.

II. To exist is to be perceptible to the senses.

Fair enough.

III. To quantify a thing in every way is to know everything there is to know about it. To the extent that we are ignorant of anything, it is only because we have not yet been able to quantify it and reduce its workings to mathematical formulae.

Hmmm, perhaps, but I don't know if quantifying everything is plausible, or possible. I don't know. Materialism suggests that many (most?) things can b quantified, but if my GReat Aunt Millie would have loved Def Lepard better than Bon Jovi.... I don't know.

IV. An infinite chain of causation is possible and necessary. E.g. if the big bang started the universe rolling, then there must have been something that caused it, and there must have been something that caused that, and so on ad infinitum.

OR

V. The concept of causation is meaningless, since causation cannot be perceived by the senses (I think that was Hume's position).

This is interesting. Again, I don't know, but the Wave Function of the Universe (from my understanding) allows for a random cause that is not preceded by "something". Since it is a basic aspect of the Theory of the Big Bang, it is part of the accepted theory and therefore, seems to be that we don't need infinite regress OR a cause.

However, I doubt any of us are experts in the field and we should probably withhold judgement. For my part, I accept what the leading scientists say, since they have verified their Theory with observation. (Red Shift, vacuum fluctuations, etc.)

I would like to know if these formulations are accurate, and if not, how should I change them. I would not want to argue against a straw man.


Thanks,

John

Yes, arguing against Straw Men sucks.

It would be refreshing to limit any Atheist-Theistic discussion to a core set of issues that can be adequately discussed within our knowledge and understanding of the world.

[realthinker]

My posts have generated quite a few responses! I can't reply to each one individually, but I'd like to try to summarize what I've read so far. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that in my second post, I mistakenly attributed Zzyzx's post to Wrekk and vice versa. Anyway, my purpose in asking my original question was to try to determine the exact point(s) at which theists and non-theists part company. Assuming that we are all human, and that we all perceive the same reality with the same senses, what are the principles upon which we base our thinking? From what I have read here, and from what I have gathered from other conversations, I would state some of the non-theist principles as follows:

I. The concept of order is meaningless, since order implies purpose, and purpose implies intelligence.

Order and disorder are not always obvious, nor continuous on all scales. A snowflake, as a water crystal, is entirely orderly, that order governed by the molecular properties of water. The shape of a snowflake though is random, governed by pressure, humidity, water purity, and who knows what else. And at another scale, the snowflakes making a snowbank are entirely disorderly, piled at all angles and orientations.

I don't think you or I are qualified to say order is meaningful or not. We cannot appreciate all scales of order. We're but tiny manifestations in the Universe, and we cannot see with clarity much beyond our own height.

II. To exist is to be perceptible to the senses.

I think this it should be obvious that this is insufficient. Stand in the pitch dark of night and gaze upward. Do you see other galaxies? Nebulae? Black holes, star clusters, or dark matter? Our senses are pathetic at determining existence. We have expanded far beyond our own senses, enhancing them through electronics, optics, and other sciences. We've been doing this with sophistication for fewer than a hundred generations. We've probably just scratched the surface of understanding what exists.

III. To quantify a thing in every way is to know everything there is to know about it. To the extent that we are ignorant of anything, it is only because we have not yet been able to quantify it and reduce its workings to mathematical formulae.

True, to a point. We can only measure about a subject things about which we have some understanding. Alchemists felt they knew a lot about metals and other substances, and we all know they were far from experts. I have a feeling the physicists of our day aren't much more certain about the inner workings of the atom.

IV. An infinite chain of causation is possible and necessary. E.g. if the big bang started the universe rolling, then there must have been something that caused it, and there must have been something that caused that, and so on ad infinitum.

OR

V. The concept of causation is meaningless, since causation cannot be perceived by the senses (I think that was Hume's position).


I would like to know if these formulations are accurate, and if not, how should I change them. I would not want to argue against a straw man.


Thanks,

John

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Zzyzx's reply that there is much order and disorder in the world is one reply that I was expecting. The existence of evil really seems to be the crux of the problem for many people. I suspect that an atheist/agnostic who is consistent will object to the use of the word "evil" to describe a state of affairs that happens to be inconsistent with human preferences. However you want to characterize this state of affairs, it still seems to me to be the sticky wicket.

Hi John. I think it's interesting that you associate disorder with the problem of evil by suggesting that people perceive disorder in the world as evil. Realthinker indirectly touched on the idea of entropy, which may serve as a measure of disorder in a physical sense. This got me thinking about biology in general - a key feature of all living things is the "export" of disorder. In order to maintain and propagate their highly ordered structures, organisms must increase the entropy of their surroundings. Does life contribute to the amount of evil in the world by its very existence? You seem to be conflating an is/ought question with physical observations about the state of the world. One may "characterize the state of affairs" without necessarily judging it.

To address your original question:

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....."

"Yes, there is much order evident in the workings of reality, and it raises many interesting questions about the organizing properties of matter given the relative simplicity of the early universe."

Later, you wrote:

I. The concept of order is meaningless, since order implies purpose, and purpose implies intelligence.

Order is not meaningless, but it is worth pointing out that all cases of intelligence which can be objectively tested (in a sort of Turing test sense, though more generally in animals) appear to be an emergent property of organized systems (brains, nervous systems, etc.). The reverse statement - order is an emergent property of intelligence - is not necessarily true.

II. To exist is to be perceptible to the senses.

One can easily define something to include the property of undetectability. While this does not preclude existence, it does make it a moot point. We will never know if it exists.

III. To quantify a thing in every way is to know everything there is to know about it. To the extent that we are ignorant of anything, it is only because we have not yet been able to quantify it and reduce its workings to mathematical formulae.

To quantify a thing in every way is to know everything there is to know about it about it; moreover, it implies that we completely understand the system (world) in which the thing exists. (Else how could we know there were not more as-yet-unknown methods of interrogating the thing?) I am not sure that such a complete understanding of the world is achievable by intelligences which are also constrained within the system (world).

IV. An infinite chain of causation is possible and necessary. E.g. if the big bang started the universe rolling, then there must have been something that caused it, and there must have been something that caused that, and so on ad infinitum.

OR

V. The concept of causation is meaningless, since causation cannot be perceived by the senses (I think that was Hume's position).

I disagree with V. The idea of causation seems to arise directly from observation by the senses. These observations were later codified into the mathematical rules of physics. Implicit in classical mechanics (the most intuitive form of physics) is the idea that if one knows the state of a system at given time, one may "rewind" or "fast forward" by applying physical rules and thus know the past and future states of the system. While this makes causation intuitive, it breaks down when t approaches 0 and the universe becomes a singularity. Physical laws cease to adequately describe the universe's behavior at this point.

It may by tempting to apply causal reasoning outside of time (or "before time" in the case of the universe's origin), but it is a phenomenon which only makes sense in the context of time. The principle of causation is meaningful and useful for describing how the universe changes in time; its usefulness extrapolating beyond this is questionable.

[Goat]

My posts have generated quite a few responses! I can't reply to each one individually, but I'd like to try to summarize what I've read so far. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that in my second post, I mistakenly attributed Zzyzx's post to Wrekk and vice versa. Anyway, my purpose in asking my original question was to try to determine the exact point(s) at which theists and non-theists part company. Assuming that we are all human, and that we all perceive the same reality with the same senses, what are the principles upon which we base our thinking? From what I have read here, and from what I have gathered from other conversations, I would state some of the non-theist principles as follows:

I. The concept of order is meaningless, since order implies purpose, and purpose implies intelligence.

No, the concept of order doesn't imply purpose, nor intelligence. A snowflake is more 'ordered' (i.e. structured), than a drop of water, yet no one can argue that
a snowflake has purpose or intelligence. This is the logical fallacy known as
'equivocation', since you are using the term order in a different manner than a
non-theist would.

II. To exist is to be perceptible to the senses.

Not quite. There are many things we can not directly observe, but can observe the effects of. For many many many years, we could not get a picture of an electron, but no one could say that electrons did not exist, because we could see their effects in the world. No one can see a black hole, but we can observe matter going round a black hole.. and see the effects of gravity. I would say that to exist would have to have an effect on the

III. To quantify a thing in every way is to know everything there is to know about it. To the extent that we are ignorant of anything, it is only because we have not yet been able to quantify it and reduce its workings to mathematical formulae.

No, that also is not true. You can quantify the thing up to a certain point, but not totally be accurate. Newton's 'law of gravity' is the perfect example. It is accurate
up to the point that you have to worry about relativity and time effects. Then Einsteins relativity kicks in, which includes Newton's formulas at lower velocities.
So, you can quantify it very very closely. Also, quantifying somethings behavior (the acceleration of gravity near the earths surface for example), doesn't mean
you have to understand WHY it happens, just observe what DOES happen. That is
the difference between the fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity.

IV. An infinite chain of causation is possible and necessary. E.g. if the big bang started the universe rolling, then there must have been something that caused it, and there must have been something that caused that, and so on ad infinitum.

OR

V. The concept of causation is meaningless, since causation cannot be perceived by the senses (I think that was Hume's position).

There are some effects that some people do not feel have causes. Other people feel those events have hidden causes we don't know about. There is endless speculation on some of the quantum effects. However, when it comes to 'causation', we have to have effects that follow after causes. Quantum mechanics
always give me headaches. It baffles me, awes me, but gives me headaches.

I would like to know if these formulations are accurate, and if not, how should I change them. I would not want to argue against a straw man.


Thanks,

John

[jmac2112]

I have received so much response to my attempted formulations above that I have had to cut and paste them into a Word document and print them out so that I can look them over. This may take a while, but I will be back with another attempt as soon as I can.

And how embarrassing to notice that I misspelled "atheist" in the subject line of my original post!


John

[Zzyzx]

.

And how embarrassing to notice that I misspelled "atheist" in the subject line of my original post!

Not to worry, John. Many theist members here incorrectly define and use the term "atheist" -- assuming that it means something more than disbelief in gods (as to imagine a unifying philosophy or ideology), which is inconsistent with its definition.

[Lionspoint]

Everything that has a cerebrum tends to seek patterns. Humans have the larger cerebrums than most other creatures (even given larger anatomies) with regard to the cerebellum.

I have been alive for 34 years and I have constantly looked for something that remained constant. And in all my searching I find our world to be almost devoid of orderliness. The best example is that animals eat plants. Venus Flytraps are plants that eat animals. The paramount realization came when I fully recognized the idea that animals eat plants became obsolete. That was when I resolved myself that my lack of knowledge would be infinite. I am infinitely unable to know anything... This is what Socrates figured out a loooooong time ago... To know anything immediately burdens the knower to know everything... something no person can do... maybe.

[daedalus 2.0]

Everything that has a cerebrum tends to seek patterns. Humans have the larger cerebrums than most other creatures (even given larger anatomies) with regard to the cerebellum.

I just want to highlight this.

This is an important idea that people must accept as true. (Well, not MUST!, but it has been shown time and time again through rigorous testing).

I think this one point alone defines and explains much of the human experience.

if people consider it long enough, they may realize how ever-present it is in every moment of out lives.

We are Pattern Recognition machines. Further, we create narratives of those patterns.

Meditate on it and realize the implications.