5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Hermit]

it is not just me who uses the term "scientific dogma".

So you are not the only one to make that mistake. Are you expecting me to be surprised?

If we look at the second definition in the OED (the first does pertain directly to religion) we find dogma may be defined and used in various ways "The body of opinion formulated or authoritatively stated; systematized belief; tenets or principles collectively; doctrinal system."

Scientific theories are not a doctrinal system. They are open to challenge, falsification and ultimately rejection. You have noted this yourself when you said: "Did you ever see that old BBC series "the day the universe changed" with James Burke? He picked half a dozen moments when our models of how the universe works were altered by large paradigm shifts." (If you like, we can discuss T.S.Kuhn in another thread. I defended aspects of him here, for example.) Hence, scientific theories are not dogma.

the parallels (especially between how people and communities deal with new ideas) are perhaps stronger than you would expect.

Thanks for telling me what I think. I suppose you have researched that by reading many of my posts in this and other fora.

Be it as it may, a fundamental difference between science and religion is that scientific claims are ultimately based on observation and induction while religious ones are ultimately based on faith. This makes the former falsifiable and therefore provisional and the latter stories about fairies in the garden.

[JimC]

Yes, I would say the scientific dogma is the scientific model of the day. As with all dogma (accepted truths) they can be very hard to overturn, people may explain away data that conflicts with dogma.

Oh, please, Theophilus. Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. While there is always a struggle for one scientific theory to supersede another, no defender of any scientific theory demands that their theories (which qualitatively differ from dogma) must not be disputed, doubted or diverged from. I resent the very term "scientific dogma" because the second word is a malapropism. I really appreciate the courteous and civil style you post in, but if you persist with associating science with dogma, I will regard that as intellectual dishonesty.

Well Seraph, it is not just me who uses the term "scientific dogma". I hear it frequently from colleagues as they struggle to persuade others of their own models. And here for example is an editorial from the Royal Society of Chemistry's journal "Analyst" on scientific dogma: http://www.rsc.org/delivery/_ArticleLin ... nalCode=AN.

If we look at the second definition in the OED (the first does pertain directly to religion) we find dogma may be defined and used in various wider ways "The body of opinion formulated or authoritatively stated; systematized belief; tenets or principles collectively; doctrinal system."

Interestingly the RSC editorial comments specifically on peer-review in respect to scientific dogma. I think the thoughts are quite pertinent considering the current controversies over peer review of stem cell research. It also reminds us that even scientists may initially reject new ideas even when supported by data....

"An intriguing ancillary issue to scientific dogma is the strongly connected role of the peer review system and Editorial practises of major vehicles for the publication of scientific research. We pretty well all accept that rigorous ‘‘justification’’ of arguments generated from chemical and other data is the order of day. I would argue for more flexibility and a greater sense of recognition from peers when considering the results of difficult and groundbreaking work. In
this respect, I am reminded that Lord Rayleigh commented that the Joule– Thompson effect was predicted years before the seminal work appeared, but
the truly original paper by Waterston was rejected. The same fate awaited an important paper, eventually published by Michael Smith on site-directed mutagenesis and we all know where this work ended. It is entirely possible that a prevailing level of dogma was involved in these decisions." (Royal Society of Chemistry Editorial; M. Thompson, (2004) Scientific dogma—a personal experience. Analyst 129, 865)

Anyway, there's nothing like a good dispute over the proper use of English language to start the day

Have a good one Seraph.

I suspect that this simply indicates that scientific models can share some of the properties of dogma for a time. Because of social factors, personal jealousy, or the repuations of senior scientists, there may be some delay and inertia in the system, which is regrettable. But eventually, new data and new evidence will falsify the old model (I am an unreconstructed Popperian... ), and the process of steadily gaining a better understanding of the universe rolls on...

[Theophilus]

Hi theo..

you seem to be doing the usual theist trick... ignoring bits that don't fit with your fairy tale...


http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 25#p397631

you didn't answer this post...

Well on that one, I would say stochastics work well at a population or group level but care is always needed in trying to apply stochastics to a single event/choice. For example, even at population level, you might be told the chance of a certain tumour being malignant is 1%. At a population level we can therefore say that about 99 out of 100 people are likely to OK. But there's one particular person in there who has got cancer, and to him or her the fact that 99 others don't means diddly squat. But you're not even at that level - you are talking about something that either "is" or "isn't", so it doesn't really have a probability function as we'd understand it in Bernoulli statistics (which deals with binomial outcomes from repeated events with a probability of p).

Apart from that I have never actually seen anyone try to tightly define the parameters that would be used to calculate the probability of the existence of God.

[Thinking Aloud]

Scientific Dogma?

There are a couple of They Might Be Giants videos that illustrate this.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Why does the sun shine?

Why does the sun really shine?

But I digress...

I spotted this little aside, and thought I'd comment - hopefully not derailing anyone else's discussions in the process.

I wonder if that is a source of frustration for some atheists, that Christians don't accept/reject Christianity using the criteria that an atheist would? I'd never really thought about it that way before (I just thought you all had dull senses for God ). I may give that further some thought.

The "dull senses for God" comment, while (I assume) tongue-in-cheek, got me thinking about my own "God Sense".

Thinking back, I think I equate the feeling of "one-ness" with god to that of an extra-powerful parent - one that was always keeping an eye on me, and at least listening and watching me struggle, even if he wasn't actively intervening. That non-intervention didn't bother me, by the way, because I knew that I'd be compensated afterwards.

The last time I really felt it was at a rally of godly youthful folks (the only one I ever attended), where there was a lot of singing and stuff. The energy of the event was amazing, and I really felt the presence of something more. Something out there - something joining us all together. I imagine that if I'd immersed myself in those environments then that feeling would have been reinforced, and I recall leaving the venue, watching the cars driving past in the rain, and feeling pity for everyone who hadn't felt what I'd felt.

And yet, the same year I found myself on a still, bright February day, walking along a deserted road in the Yorkshire Dales, feeling the awesome age of the rocks around me in the silence, and the vastness of history recorded in the coral reefs they contained; and having a sense that there was so much more than could be described by the stories I'd been brought up to believe.

It was probably that day that I felt attached to something more profound than the ultra-parent figure from the stories. And for a number of years I equated my sense of god to a feeling of belonging in the universe. A kind of deistic approach, with a non-interventionist god somewhere out there, but with an outward expression of that through theism: all gods are the same god - we just took different approaches to commune with it.

But ... if the god did nothing, and there was no sign of it ever having done anything (or if it had, why did it choose to do everything worth reporting in a particular corner of the Middle East over 1400 years ago?) then I wondered why I was expending so much energy on it. Simple answer: Heaven. Going somewhere nicer later. The REWARD for all my worship and praise.

Then I asked myself how, exactly, that worked.

It couldn't work. It was physically impossible; it was neurologically impossible; it was logically impossible for any essence of me to continue after my body died. There was nothing except the stories to say that anything happened to my "soul" after death. I realised that when I die, I will be as unalive as I was before I was born. I will cease to be. There will be no more me, except briefly in the memories of others, and perhaps a few records for a few years. I looked at the other stories, and they were all variations on a theme. They were all cleverly crafted ways of controlling the masses (and often making money) through wishful thinking.

What was the most logical, and reasonable explanation: that ignorant man invented gods to explain things he couldn't understand, and to exert power over others; or that some god created a stupendous frozen vacuum scattered with nuclear fusion reactors, then waited 14 billion years for a microscopic spec of dust to get a particular type of infection, then went there in person, chose one tiny bit of that infection to be "special" and set it fighting itself, before the god withdrew entirely, immediately changed its mind, impregnated one of the lifeforms, had a baby, which promptly died, apparently to "save us"? What?

I kinda went with the first explanation. And that's after 30 years of being told repeatedly that the second is all true, and believing it. Stepping out of that, and looking in was perhaps the most amazing revelation ever.

Where did that leave my god sense?

I realised it for what it was: that feeling of trust, confidence, one-ness, and closeness - the ultra-parent feeling - was entirely in my mind. I had been convinced that the entity was real, and that I could direct my intentions at it - and that it would listen. I had also been told that any sense of comfort when doing so was from that same god. Nope - it was just neurological sensations entirely within my own head.

After all, if god was communicating personally with even half the planet, that's a hell of a lot of wireless broadband going to and from each and everyone's craniums - it would play havoc with TV signals.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm still pondering on miracles Gawdz. I am wondering what evidence would convince me that a healing (they are the most often claimed miracles) was miraculous. You will know that "miracles" in scripture were signs to people (e.g. evidence of divinity), so one man's miracle could simply be another man's natural (if uncommon) healing.

As I've mentioned before I'm not from the "charismatic" (the charisms being "gifts" in this case) wing of the church; I don't mix with those that claim to perform or witness miracles. This may be a discussion that you're best having with someone who has witnessed (or would claim to have witnessed) a miracle. Everyday life is sufficient miracle for me, though I know that is not how you're describing miracles.

Actually, there has been NO credible evidence of a supernatural event resulting in a tangible result. So miracles are moot. Move along.

[Tigger]

Scientific Dogma?

There are a couple of They Might Be Giants videos that illustrate this.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Why does the sun shine?

Why does the sun really shine?

But I digress...

I spotted this little aside, and thought I'd comment - hopefully not derailing anyone else's discussions in the process.

I wonder if that is a source of frustration for some atheists, that Christians don't accept/reject Christianity using the criteria that an atheist would? I'd never really thought about it that way before (I just thought you all had dull senses for God ). I may give that further some thought.

The "dull senses for God" comment, while (I assume) tongue-in-cheek, got me thinking about my own "God Sense".

Thinking back, I think I equate the feeling of "one-ness" with god to that of an extra-powerful parent - one that was always keeping an eye on me, and at least listening and watching me struggle, even if he wasn't actively intervening. That non-intervention didn't bother me, by the way, because I knew that I'd be compensated afterwards.

The last time I really felt it was at a rally of godly youthful folks (the only one I ever attended), where there was a lot of singing and stuff. The energy of the event was amazing, and I really felt the presence of something more. Something out there - something joining us all together. I imagine that if I'd immersed myself in those environments then that feeling would have been reinforced, and I recall leaving the venue, watching the cars driving past in the rain, and feeling pity for everyone who hadn't felt what I'd felt.

And yet, the same year I found myself on a still, bright February day, walking along a deserted road in the Yorkshire Dales, feeling the awesome age of the rocks around me in the silence, and the vastness of history recorded in the coral reefs they contained; and having a sense that there was so much more than could be described by the stories I'd been brought up to believe.

It was probably that day that I felt attached to something more profound than the ultra-parent figure from the stories. And for a number of years I equated my sense of god to a feeling of belonging in the universe. A kind of deistic approach, with a non-interventionist god somewhere out there, but with an outward expression of that through theism: all gods are the same god - we just took different approaches to commune with it.

But ... if the god did nothing, and there was no sign of it ever having done anything (or if it had, why did it choose to do everything worth reporting in a particular corner of the Middle East over 1400 years ago?) then I wondered why I was expending so much energy on it. Simple answer: Heaven. Going somewhere nicer later. The REWARD for all my worship and praise.

Then I asked myself how, exactly, that worked.

It couldn't work. It was physically impossible; it was neurologically impossible; it was logically impossible for any essence of me to continue after my body died. There was nothing except the stories to say that anything happened to my "soul" after death. I realised that when I die, I will be as unalive as I was before I was born. I will cease to be. There will be no more me, except briefly in the memories of others, and perhaps a few records for a few years. I looked at the other stories, and they were all variations on a theme. They were all cleverly crafted ways of controlling the masses (and often making money) through wishful thinking.

What was the most logical, and reasonable explanation: that ignorant man invented gods to explain things he couldn't understand, and to exert power over others; or that some god created a stupendous frozen vacuum scattered with nuclear fusion reactors, then waited 14 billion years for a microscopic spec of dust to get a particular type of infection, then went there in person, chose one tiny bit of that infection to be "special" and set it fighting itself, before the god withdrew entirely, immediately changed its mind, impregnated one of the lifeforms, had a baby, which promptly died, apparently to "save us"? What?

I kinda went with the first explanation. And that's after 30 years of being told repeatedly that the second is all true, and believing it. Stepping out of that, and looking in was perhaps the most amazing revelation ever.

Where did that leave my god sense?

I realised it for what it was: that feeling of trust, confidence, one-ness, and closeness - the ultra-parent feeling - was entirely in my mind. I had been convinced that the entity was real, and that I could direct my intentions at it - and that it would listen. I had also been told that any sense of comfort when doing so was from that same god. Nope - it was just neurological sensations entirely within my own head.

After all, if god was communicating personally with even half the planet, that's a hell of a lot of wireless broadband going to and from each and everyone's craniums - it would play havoc with TV signals.

Nicely written.
I note Theo still ignores the direct approach.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ces,

Thanks for your thoughtful replies. I started to reply to the last one but realised I was just repeating myself.

Not necessary to repeat yourself. In my last post I asked some different questions. You could have addressed those.

If I think of something more useful to add I will (hmmm......I think I might have left an open goal with that comment).

Well, right, because there are open questions in my last post, looking for whether you agreed with me on specific points or what your reasons for disagreement would be.

I get the distinct impression that you are avoiding the idea that your religion is just one among many that are based on the same forms of evidence, plus faith. You and I reject all the other religions out there, and the only one we disagree on is yours. We even have the same reasons for rejecting the other religions. The one thing you don't do is hold your own religion to the same standard.

But I will just correct one misunderstanding you may have. If you look back at my posts I have not tried to offer you proof of God; I hope I have always made it clear I can't do that.

That's right, you can't. And, in any other context that in and of itself is enough to not believe in something. For example, if you could not offer me proof that ghosts live in your house, that would be enough for anyone to, at a bare minimum, refrain from believing in your ghosts. It doesn't matter that you say you saw something that you can't explain, or felt a personal experience with the ghosts.

The example Carl Sagan used is the invisible, undetectable fire breathing dragon in a person's garage. Here, read this (it's short): http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

That's how we approach everything. You want an exception for your religion. Isn't that right? Your religion is the dragon in the garage that nobody can see, feel, here, taste, touch or smell, and there is no test or observation that can be done or made to indicate that it is there.

Things such as internal consistency and historical fit are important to have, and reassure me that my belief is not contrary to logic,

Yes, but when all the major religions, and most religions overall, are internally consistent and fit historically, the import is reduced considerably.

reason or known history, but I fully accept they are not proof. Internal "proof" comes from faith (it is "proof" in the manner that it gives sufficient confidence to believe), and I fully accept that is not transferable from one person to another. Faith, I believe, is a gift from God (and I'm very aware that statement relies on faith to believe).

yes it does - your whole belief is based on faith - belief without evidence, in what is told by one without knowledge, of things without parallel. You're not believing a little thing. You're choosing to believe in something that is fundamental to the nature of the universe. You choose to believe that, without evidence, based only on what is told or written by those without any greater knowledge themselves.

Anyone can write a book that is not "internally inconsistent." Most books, in fact, are internally consistent. Even wholly fraudulent books, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a complete fabrication, is "internally consistent." So what?

Absolutely, if a book contradicts itself, well, then it is surely suspect. However, the mere fact that it does not contradict itself is normal, nothing special. It's expected.

[Theophilus]

Thanks Ces

I would see two key differences between my faith and the garage dragon analogy...

1) Perhaps to be a tad more analogous with Christianity the analogy would have signed testimonies from others that they have seen the dragon in the garage. The dragon would also not exist out of context of the history of my garage, but would be woven in with the history of my garage.

2) The analogy may work from the non-believers perspective (given the lack of historical context) but that, of course, is the angle from which it is presented (I can see why, I think it does present the non-believer's perspective fairly well). From the believer's perspective they have been in the presence of said dragon, and if other people can't see the dragon well that's an interesting observation that is worthy of some puzzling, but there is no reason to doubt ourselves. There are lots of things in my life I know have happened but I could never prove then to others, but I will of course take my own memories and experiences over someone who says "I didn't see it so I don't believe you".

A closer analogy may be two people looking out of a window. One can see a dragon (maybe one that's been described as living locally in some old books) and the other can't. In the absence of a dragon detector they are left to puzzle over their different views through the same window. Of course that analogy, as with all analogies, also breaks down at some point, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Ho hum.

[Thinking Aloud]

A closer analogy may be two people looking out of a window. One can see a dragon (maybe one that's been described as living locally in some old books) and the other can't. In the absence of a dragon detector they are left to puzzle over their different views through the same window. Of course that analogy, as with all analogies, also breaks down at some point, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

But ultimately there either is a dragon, or there isn't a dragon. One of those two people is wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A closer analogy may be two people looking out of a window. One can see a dragon (maybe one that's been described as living locally in some old books) and the other can't. In the absence of a dragon detector they are left to puzzle over their different views through the same window. Of course that analogy, as with all analogies, also breaks down at some point, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Ho hum.

So, you're addressing why one person can see the dragon and another cannot without considering the more important issue of "do dragons exist"?

[Tigger]

A closer analogy may be two people looking out of a window. One can see a dragon (maybe one that's been described as living locally in some old books) and the other can't. In the absence of a dragon detector they are left to puzzle over their different views through the same window. Of course that analogy, as with all analogies, also breaks down at some point, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

But ultimately there either is a dragon, or there isn't a dragon. One of those two people is wrong.

And in the absence of dragon poop, I know what I'm betting on.

[Coito ergo sum]

Thanks Ces

I would see two key differences between my faith and the garage dragon analogy...

1) Perhaps to be a tad more analogous with Christianity the analogy would have signed testimonies from others that they have seen the dragon in the garage. The dragon would also not exist out of context of the history of my garage, but would be woven in with the history of my garage.

One, Christianity does not have "signed" testimonies. Mormonism does. Christianity does not. Christianity has books written generations after the events described, and the originals are not known, and the authorship is not certain. Let's say that someone named "Mark" actually wrote "Mark." He did not sign the work, we do not have the original, and we do not know whether he was reporting accurately. In fact, he's not a witness to MOST of what is reported in the gospel of Mark, but must have gotten most of his information second hand or third hand. Some of the events described were not attended by the writer of Mark. The same goes for the other gospels.

Two, if four people are in a house and four of them swear up and down that there is a dragon in the garage, but there is no evidence of the dragon (can't detect the heat, no droppings, no footprints detectable, undetectable to laser beams or other tests, gives off no heat, etc.), the fact that these four people all swear to have seen the dragon does not hold much water. We have had many occasions, beyond counting, of groups of people believing things to be true that simply were not.

2) The analogy may work from the non-believers perspective (given the lack of historical context) but that, of course, is the angle from which it is presented (I can see why, I think it does present the non-believer's perspective fairly well).

It presents anyone's perspective fairly well. If a person is already a believer, then the belief is based not on evidence (whether we can detect the dragon) but on something else. In other words, if one approaches the dragon as a believer already, then the cart is before the horse.

From the believer's perspective they have been in the presence of said dragon,

From the believer's perspective? So, reality is subjective now? Reality is relative?

and if other people can't see the dragon well that's an interesting observation that is worthy of some puzzling, but there is no reason to doubt ourselves.

There is EVERY reason to doubt ourselves. People often are mistaken. Further, it's not "ourselves" that we doubt, it's other people. If you accept that it's perfectly reasonable to believe in the dragon because we shouldn't doubt ourselves, then anything else that people claim to have seen (e.g. Odin, Apollo, Moroni, etc.) are also perfectly reasonable to believe. Joseph Smith claims to have seen the angel Moroni - nobody else can verify it, of course - why should Joseph doubt himself, right? After all, his story is historically consistent and woven together historically.

There are lots of things in my life I know have happened but I could never prove then to others, but I will of course take my own memories and experiences over someone who says "I didn't see it so I don't believe you".

And, I'll take your word for it, as far as it goes. However, if you say you saw a white light while you were on the operating table and your heart stopped, even if you are convinced that the white light is god or heaven, I'll certainly not take your word for it. Why? Because we can't verify it, it may well be a product or effect of your brain and intense emotions, and others have had similar experiences and attributed the light to other things than your god or your heaven.

A closer analogy may be two people looking out of a window. One can see a dragon (maybe one that's been described as living locally in some old books) and the other can't. In the absence of a dragon detector they are left to puzzle over their different views through the same window. Of course that analogy, as with all analogies, also breaks down at some point, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Ho hum.

I see what you are getting act, but you destroy your own rationale with that metaphor.

An even CLOSER analogy is 1000 people looking out of the window and some of them seeing a dragon (with some people describing the dragon a being different colors, shapes and sizes) and some of them seeing winged elephants (with some people describing the winged elephants as being different colors, shapes and sizes), so that we have a dozens of different things that are claimed to be witnessed. None of them are detectable. Each of the "witnesses" asks those who do not see the dragon or the winged elephant to (a) accept that something is there, even though nothing can be verified or detected, (b) accept that it is what one or another individual says it is (dragon or elephant of asserted color, shape and size), and (c) reject all the other witnesses' assertions as plainly not credible.

You say, "I see a red, winged, dragon, with a big head and sleek body." Johnny says he sees "a blue, winged, elephant, the size of a house." Mary says he sees, "a purple, miniature, chubby dragon, breathing rainbow fire." Mike says he sees "an emaciated demon elephant with horns and fire shooting from its tusks."

You say that your belief is perfectly reasonable. But you reject Johnny, Mary, and Mike's assertions. And, you say that those who reject all four assertions are "irrational."

[colubridae]

Despite it all I do think it is unfair that 'thedistillers' name is on the start of this thread.

In all fairness theophilis has made it the interesting/bonkers dicussion that it is.

Whatever I think of your views, I keep being irritated when I see 'Thedistillers' as the OP, not you.

I do disagree with you, theo, but at least there is some intelligence at work, unlike the original post.

Can we change it pretty please?

[Thinking Aloud]

Can we change it pretty please?

It's almost certainly worth a split, with the distillers-based responses taken elsewhere.

[Tigger]

Can we change it pretty please?

It's almost certainly worth a split, with the distillers-based responses taken elsewhere.

First crappy bit split off.
Sorry. Serious mod is serious.

MOD moves in mysterious ways...