On the subject of atheism.

[zorkan]

So atheism has been around for thousands of years, but I'm interested in the rise of it after Darwin (neo atheists).
I have books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Mills. These seem like intellectual arguments against religion.
There are also books and videos more like counter arguments.
None of them address the big issue, that we may well be living in a created universe.

Atheism as a subject fascinates me, but I wonder about the unbalanced argument.
I've recently read The Desire for God by David Baddiel, who is a secular Jew, and more like a balanced argument.
Do you agree?

[zorkan]

The idea of a supernatural god is challenged by the JS Mill argument that god himself would need a creator.
The black hole here is that for some reason many people need an entity to look up to and worship.

Better to worship a human god or just plain human, as with the case of the islanders of Tanna.

"They spoke of how Prince Philip was a deity, the son of the volcano god Kalbaben, and how a token from Him would set things aright."
It seems this is not just a cargo cult, but has some connect to how the human mind works.
 

[billy rubin]

So atheism has been around for thousands of years, but I'm interested in the rise of it after Darwin (neo atheists).
I have books by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Mills. These seem like intellectual arguments against religion.
There are also books and videos more like counter arguments.
None of them address the big issue, that we may well be living in a created universe.

how would we tell that we are living in a created universe, zorkan?

may the other question is simpler to answer:

how would we tell that we are not?

[zorkan]

Even Dawkins kind of suggests he's not completely sure.

https://richarddawkins.net/2006/10/why-there-almost-certainly-is-no-god/

And, for sure, I'm not either.
As in a Venn diagram there does seem to be an overlapping area here which I'm trying to explore.
SJ Gould attempted to answer this with a non overlap - NOMA.

[billy rubin]

i spoke with gould once, briefly. should have taken more time. hurried on to listen to sewell wright and george gaylord simpson.

both of them about to drop dead from years of accumulated wisdom.

dawkins is kind of an idiot, although a cheerful one, in the british tradition. much more interesting than the murderous sam harris, who i would happily squash like a bug.

personally, i dont know how to determine the difference between a created universe and an uncreated one.

i dont think its possible to do so reasonably.

[zorkan]

From earliest times humans have found good and evil which evolved into god and devil.
Later came arguments like Pascal's wager and the god of the gaps.
Priests explain away difficult questions by saying there are things that god only knows.

It feels like a no win situation for atheists.
There will always be a corridor of uncertainty either way.
Even J Welby has his doubts whether god exists.

Look at it another way.
Humans need to worship in some way.
Find something to scapegoat.

[Asmodean]

In terms of theism or lack thereof, what does it matter whether or not the universe was created by a concsious entity (or a group thereof) or not? How would that speak for or against capital-G gods? Was it Zeus who explosively farted and called it Big Bang? YHWH? Chtulhu? Eru Iluvatar? Lrrr of Omicron Persei Eight? Are those gods and alien man-eating horrors products of the universe, perhaps? Maybe even far-down-the-line products-of-products? It's a pretty meaningless conversation.

If you assume that the universe was thusly created, that would create this and other otherwise-unnecessary variables that would have to be accounted for to bolster a specific theistic argument.

My point is this; there is no need to address that "we may well be living in a created universe" because we, quite simply, may well not. It is on those who would invent a variable to demonstrate its necessity. If you want a balanced argument, throw away any variable you can do without, then the rest is pretty much it. From there, if you are so inclined, you may add variables and justify and explain them accordingly, thus evolving your model of reality.

[zorkan]

My point is this; there is no need to address that "we may well be living in a created universe" because we, quite simply, may well not. It is on those who would invent a variable to demonstrate its necessity. If you want a balanced argument, throw away any variable you can do without, then the rest is pretty much it. From there, if you are so inclined, you may add variables and justify and explain them accordingly, thus evolving your model of reality.

Scientists who think the universe might have evolved include Lee Smolin and Stephen Hawking.
I take no notice of Dawkins on this issue because he says god would have to be more complex than his creation.
Better to reason that the universe started with simplicity and evolved from there, like the way biological evolution started. Could have been a warm little pond, an undersea vent, an alien virus, one cell finding its way into another.
The laws of physics may also have evolved. I understand this was Hawking's final theory.
Then the universe might have been created by a white hole in the centre of a black hole from another universe.
The Mysterious Universe, a book by James Jeans from a century ago is a bit out of date but still an amazing read, shows how fascinating it all is.
I will only agree that theists will try to exploit our scientific knowledge for their own ends.

[The Magic Pudding..]

What AI chatbot are you using Marcus?
I don't seek to censor, it's a shitload better than your poetry.

[zorkan]

What the **** is that last post?
Like to ask real questions.

You go to school and are brainwashed into whatever religion.
You see reason when your brain is developed and you become angry.
Has anyone tried to sue the school on the basis of no evidence for what you were taught?

Take it a stage further.
Can you appeal for a place of religion to be shut down on the basis of what they teach in there is deceit.

If I were to be called to court on the basis of religious hatred, I would refuse to take any oath and instead hold up a copy of All In The Mind by Ludovic Kennedy.

[The Magic Pudding..]

All In The Mind by Ludovic Kennedy.

So what did he have say for himself?

[The Magic Pudding..]

What the **** is that last post?

Sorry

You see reason when your brain is developed and you become angry.

I love that line.

Has anyone tried to sue the school on the basis of no evidence for what you were taught?

Take it a stage further.
Can you appeal for a place of religion to be shut down on the basis of what they teach in there is deceit.

Suing on a basis you make up, chortle chortle, snigger snigger.

[zorkan]

All In The Mind by Ludovic Kennedy.

So what did he have say for himself?

Get hold of the book.
It's an easy read.
I'd compare him to Bart Ehrman, agnostic atheist.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780340680643

[zorkan]

Bart Ehrman the christian scholar is an author I've read only briefly, and I don't know what influence he has had.
I'm going to try and find all his books.
"How Jesus became God" seems interesting and I only glanced at a copy of it this week.
Can anyone help me here with an opinion.

[zorkan]

I've found a copy of Whose Word Is it? by Ehrman. (AKA The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.)
What caught my eye is a quote from Porphry.
"The evangelists were fiction writers - not observers or eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion".

Much like the argument made by Thomas Paine, centuries later, in his book The Age of Reason.