The Religion/Faith of Atheism

[mzuniga]

On the other hand, we currently have no evidence that logic could discover Gods, given that we can't even discover the simplest forms of alien life with it. Yet.

Okay, I have a couple of problems with this statement.

The first is that we can’t use logic to discover extraterrestrial life. The only thing that logic is going to do in this area is give us a probability for its existence. There actually is a formula for this, but it’s filled with so many unknowns that it’s essentially useless. This is not a limitation of logic, it’s a limitation of our data gathering abilities.

You also say that we can’t discover alien life. But the truth is, we really haven’t looked. First, we have this terrible “northern hemisphere” bigotry in the US and Europe, where most of this kind of work is done. If we ever get hit by an asteroid, I’ll bet it comes at us from the southern hemisphere, a portion of the sky we rarely look at (and if you think about it, we’re talking about half the entire universe here!)

Second, the only way we can look for extraterrestrial life is to send and receive light waves. Light has a problem in the Universe, in that it’s limited to the speed of light. Put it this way, assume that the way two intelligences can communicate is through radio waves (which as you know, are also limited to the speed of light). We’ve only been able to understand radio waves for the last hundred years or so. The universe is roughly 14 billion years old, so we’ve only been listening for 0.00000007% of the universe’s existence. The universe spans 156 billion light years, we can only “see” 100 of those from the time of the invention of radio. So, we’ve only looked at (listened to) 0.00000006% of the universe.

Put it this way. Imagine someone dropped a penny somewhere in Shea Stadium. You walk into Shea Stadium, go up to the upper balcony, and with a magnifying glass, you look at just the tip of the skrew that holds the back of seat 24A in Section 309 to the cement floor.

You don’t find the penny.

Did you really expect to? There could be a whole batch of rolls of pennys on every seat in the Stadium and you still wound't find one.

It's not faith to believe logic can build good bridges. We have evidence.

It is faith to believe logic can understand Gods. We have no evidence.

Ahh, see, here’s the problem. How do you know we have evidence that logic can build good bridges? How do you know those bridges even exist?

There is no spoon, as they say in the Matrix.

If you hold that logic can tell us about architecture, then you should also hold that logic can tell us about God, or at least the Christian concept thereof.

Put it this way, can the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? No, of course not, you say. Why not? Because a thing cannot be pink and invisible at the same time. If it’s pink, it’s not invisible. If it’s invisible, it’s not pink.
This is simple logic. Contractions do not exist, says Rand. A thing that is self-contradictory cannot exist.
 
God is said to be all knowing, all powerful and all loving, all at the same time. This is self-contradictory, and it’s simply not possible.

Atheist: If God is all loving, he would see to it that no suffering existed in the world.
Christian: God didn’t put suffering in the world, man did.
Atheist: Did man create the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans, or the tsunami that pummeled so much of India?
Christian: (Annoyed) You know what I mean.
Atheist: Actually, I don’t, but for the sake of argument let’s move on. You are saying that God gave us free will, and because of free will, we introduce suffering, right?
Christian: (self-satisfied) Yes!
Atheist: So, why didn’t God, create man such that he has free will but wouldn’t create suffering?
Christian: How can you do that? You can’t have free will without suffering, otherwise, it wouldn’t be free will!!!
Atheist: I have no idea how to do that, but I’m not God. If God can do anything, then he can create free will without suffering.
Christian: How could he? It’s not possible.
Atheist: Then you’re saying there is something that God can’t do, so he isn’t all powerful.
Christian: (Stymied)

You just simply can’t have it all. You have to give up one of the omni’s for God to actually exist. If you give up one of the omni’s, it doesn’t take long to discover you actually have to give up all of the omni’s, and suddenly, we’re talking about the God that I presented as the first option in my previous post. And that’s an entirely different discussion.

The only way around this delima is to say that logic itself is flawed. If logic is flawed in this case, then it must be flawed in every case, including it's application to architecture, and medicene, and math, etc.

I hasten to admit that this argument (that if one part of logic is flawed, all logic must be flawed) is based on logic. If logic really is flawed, then this entire discussion and everything we think we know is all bullshit (pardon my French) anyway. That's why I say that argument of this type really gets us nowhere.

[i_am_i]

You just simply can’t have it all. You have to give up one of the omni’s for God to actually exist. If you give up one of the omni’s, it doesn’t take long to discover you actually have to give up all of the omni’s, and suddenly, we’re talking about the God that I presented as the first option in my previous post. And that’s an entirely different discussion.

The only way around this delima is to say that logic itself is flawed. If logic is flawed in this case, then it must be flawed in every case, including it's application to architecture, and medicene, and math, etc.

I hasten to admit that this argument (that if one part of logic is flawed, all logic must be flawed) is based on logic. If logic really is flawed, then this entire discussion and everything we think we know is all bullshit (pardon my French) anyway. That's why I say that argument of this type really gets us nowhere.

Well, no. Logic is only a tool, and as far as it goes it's a good one. But just because there is definitely such a thing as false logic does not mean that logic is flawed, no more than being unfortunate enough to buy a lemon of a car means that all cars are lemons.

What logic can do very well is address supernatural ideas as human contructs. That's not to say that logic can disprove anything supernatural, but it can make a strong argument that ideas that require a supernatural state of existance to be valid are most likely, if not certainly, nothing more than human inventions, whether those ideas are based on superstition or on some established religious doctrine.

[mzuniga]

What logic can do very well is address supernatural ideas as human contructs. That's not to say that logic can disprove anything supernatural, but it can make a strong argument that ideas that require a supernatural state of existance to be valid are most likely, if not certainly, nothing more than human inventions, whether those ideas are based on superstition or on some established religious doctrine.

I guess that what I am saying (or trying to say anyway) is that logic can and does disprove the existence of God as he is defined by Christian theology. This does not disprove the general concept of a god, however. Logic cannot do that. I cannot disprove, for example, the existence of Zeus, because there is nothing that I am aware of that is self-contradictory in his definition.

If you remove the self-contradicting aspects of the Christian God, then that concept of a god is no longer disprovable by logic. But then, it ceases to be the Christian concept of God.

And you do make a very good point, in that beyond simple proof and disproof, there is also the concept of likelihood. Based on the consistency of what we know and observe, we can make probabilistic estimates as to the veracity of claims.

Is it possible that some intelligence created our universe? Yes it is possible. Is it probable? Based on what I know and observe, I would say no.

And really, this comes back to the original question. Because my estimate is based on probablities that are backed by observation and logic, it is not a faith. It is a logical conclusion. It doesn't mean I'm right. But it is not a faith because all it would take is for someone to show me the error in logic, or to present evidence that disputes the logic to make me change my mind.

I like Carl Sagan's idea: show me a message encoded in the number PI, and oh yeah, I'm a believer!

[i_am_i]

Logic can't do much more than present an argument, and the better the logic the better the argument. Once the argument is presented then I guess it's up to the philosophers to decide whether or not that argument is worthy of any serious consideration.

Myself, I'm content with being convinced that all this God stuff is just a made-up fantasy. I've been so convinced for going on thirty years and I have yet to see anything that would cause me to be convinced otherwise.

[Typist]

If you hold that logic can tell us about architecture, then you should also hold that logic can tell us about God, or at least the Christian concept thereof.

We have a long experience of creating buildings using logic.   We have no history of discovering any form of intelligence anywhere in the universe beyond this planet.   If we can't find a single cell of life beyond earth, upon what logical basis do we claim our logic and data is currently capable of coming to a conclusion on a subject as large as God?

Put it this way, can the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist? No, of course not, you say.

No, um, I don't say that.  I've said repeatedly (you may have missed these threads) that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, right now, in your house.

Because a thing cannot be pink and invisible at the same time. If it’s pink, it’s not invisible. If it’s invisible, it’s not pink. This is simple logic.

No, respectfully, it is a simple assertion.

Contractions do not exist, says Rand. A thing that is self-contradictory cannot exist.

Again, this assumes that the dualistic nature of the human mind is an adequate guide to all phenomena in the universe.   May I remind us that we didn't even know 99% of the universe was there only 100 years ago?
 

God is said to be all knowing, all powerful and all loving, all at the same time. This is self-contradictory, and it’s simply not possible.

Again, the assumption that human logic can understand everything.

You just simply can’t have it all.

That could be true, but you simply don't know it.  You just think you do.

The only way around this delima is to say that logic itself is flawed. If logic is flawed in this case, then it must be flawed in every case, including it's application to architecture, and medicene, and math, etc.

Apologies, but one doesn't follow from the other.   It could be that logic is a tool that is great for some things, but not other things.   Have you ever tried to show a 3 month old baby you love it, using logic?

I hasten to admit that this argument (that if one part of logic is flawed, all logic must be flawed) is based on logic. If logic really is flawed, then this entire discussion and everything we think we know is all bullshit (pardon my French) anyway. That's why I say that argument of this type really gets us nowhere.

Well, it's fun, or we wouldn't be doing it here, right?

And, if we see the limits of one method, we may then go on to explore other methods.  If we never see the limits of the first method, we may remain stuck in it forever.

[Ihateusernames]

Sorry everyone I'ma huntin' wabbits...

[mzuniga]

Typist, I think I must have miscommunicated. I think we may actually be saying the same thing, or at least, close to the same thing, but somehow, the ideas are getting confused.

I’ll try to explain, but bear with me, this is a complex concept. Well, actually, it is a simple concept, but it’s difficult to explain.
When I said logic could be flawed, I didn’t mean a particular piece of logic could be flawed. That of course can happen, but it isn’t what I meant. I meant that logic itself, the very process, could be invalid.

Logic is the systematic process based upon principles of combining bits of knowledge to deduce or infer greater knowledge. In formulating a logical statement, we use such things as sequence, numerability, consistency of properties, cause and effect. We begin with simple concepts that grow in complexity as we combine our elements.

For example, suppose you have caller ID. I phone you, and you notice that the number I’m calling from is in the Chicago area code. During our conversation, I tell you I’m calling you from New York. There is a contradiction. Using the principles of logic, you realize that contradictions do not exist. To eliminate the contradiction, you can deduce one of two things:

1) I am lying. I really am in Chicago, and for some reason, I am attempting a subterfuge trying to convince you that I’m not.
2) I’m a hacker, and I am somehow routing our telephone conversation from New York through Chicago, to you, so that your phone reads as if I am in Chicago, but in reality I am in New York.

Both of these statements are consistent with what we know of physical properties and the state of modern telephony.

Using logic, one thing you cannot infer is that I am in both Chicago and New York at the same time. Given what we know of physical properties, a physical person or thing cannot be in two places at the same time.

But, what if logic is invalid? Not the two deductions I made above, but the very process of logic itself. If logic is invalid, then why can’t a physical entity be in two places at the same time? Well, there is nothing to say that it can’t. There are no rules. Things don’t have to make any sense, because it is only with the existence and validity of logic that anything can make sense. That’s what we mean when we say “it makes sense.” We are saying that the statement is consistent with logic.

Now, here comes the hard part:

Either logic works, or it doesn’t. If logic works, then it always works, and it always works everywhere. This is because logic is the application of known principles based on the properties of reality.

The real problem with the statement “either logic works, or it doesn’t” is that it is a logical statement. The statement itself assumes that logic is valid! If logic itself is invalid, then the very statement “either logic works, or it doesn’t” is invalid.

So, when you say, logic works for architecture but not for God, what you are actually saying is that logic itself is invalid. In such a case, I would say the only thing wrong with your statement is that “logic works for architecture” is actually incorrect, or at the very least, unsupportable. I would say it would be more accurate to say “logic appears to work for architecture.” That the appearance is remarkably consistent, so consistent that it appears to always work for architecture, is beside the point.

If logic is invalid, then the statement “a thing cannot be pink and invisible at the same time” is indeed just a matter of opinion, just as you say. But if logic is valid, then this statement is not simply an opinion. It is the necessary result of the properties of reality.

Now, I maintain that logic is valid. I maintain that because of its unerring consistency with perceived reality. However, I readily admit that that very statement is based upon the assumption that logic is valid.

But I submit that this is philosophical hyperbole. If logic is indeed invalid, then there are no rules â€" or at least, we cannot deduce what the rules are, since logic is our only means of deduction, and by definition, that is invalid. Everything then is an illusion; however, I perceive that within my illusion, the principles of logic appear to be consistent nonetheless. In other words, it’s a remarkably consistent illusion.

If logic is valid, then reality is consistent. Our perceptions confirm this.

Illusion or reality? Since both appear to be equally consistent, then does it really matter?

Do you see where I’m coming from?

Now, back to our original question (and I think you just made me change my mind here), is this a faith?

I submit that atheism is not a faith, because it is â€" in my case anyway â€" a logical conclusion based on perceived reality. But that logical conclusion is based on my belief (just another word for faith) that logic is valid.

You cannot use logic to validate logic! You can’t say logic is true because logic says so. It’s like saying the Bible is true because the Bible says so. It’s a circular argument (which, amazingly enough, is a logical argument  You can go crazy thinking about this stuff).

So, I formally recant my previous assertion (sort of): Ultimately, yes there is a faith involved. It is the faith in the validity of logic.

[Ivan Tudor C McHock]

The reasons why atheism is neither a religion nor faith-based have been covered in this thread and elsewhere.

I seriously doubt that believers genuinely see atheism as faith-based. It seems to me more likely that it is merely a cheap point-scoring exercise.

However, the thing I find interesting is the fact that theists will use their own condition, that of the religious faithful, in an attempt to insult the faithless. What they are tacitly saying when they attempt to paint atheists as religious is, "Sure, I may be an idiot, but so are you!"

[elliebean]

I know you are but what am I? lol

[notself]

In my experience, "believers" are not that confident in the existence of their god.  They are more superstitious than faithful.  If they can't draw other people into their shaky system of illogical belief, they start using non sequiturs.

[i_am_i]

Faith is what gets suckers into trouble. Faith is what the con-man depends on to make his living. Faith is what causes people to lose money on the stock exchange. Faith is why the divorce rate is so high.

Faith never designed and constructed a skyscraper or composed a symphony or painted a masterpiece. Faith has definitely, however, led to the slaughter of millions upon millions of human beings.