Atheism has finally found its spiritual leader

@fresco,

Now you are confusing me, Fresco. Are you arguing that there is no separation between science and religion?

Science makes a set of testable claims which are then either confirmed or refuted through experiment. Science doesn't advance without experiment.

In Philosophy or religion, you make up your own axioms and then build on them. They don't have to be empirically tested.

Quantum Mechanics is based on the consequences of Schrodinger's Equation.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/simg57.gif

The strange results of this equation are sometimes explained with stories about cats or uncertainty... but the cats and uncertainty aren't the science. The mathematical model is the science.

If you think you can fit your philosophical or religious beliefs into Schrodinger's Equation... then more power to you. But be aware, I am going to ask you to solve the wave function for your beliefs to see if they hold up when tested experimentally, because that is what we do in science.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

A belief in karma is religion.

A belief in karma is a belief in a dynamic, not a religion. Karma is simply the law of cause and effect. When I was a thief, I drew to myself the company of those who shared my philosophy of enriching myself at the expense of others. I was repelled by those who didn't share my idea of getting ahead. In time, the company I drew to myself enriched themselves at my expense.

Conversely, when I eventually could no longer see myself without being disgusted, and then made a decision to be better, I drew to myself the company of those who shared my new philosophy of self growth. And together, we enriched each other at no one's expense.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Of course your belief in Karma, as cause and effect, is a religious belief. You believe it because it is something you want to to believe. It feels nice to believe in some Principle of Goodness rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. So, you ignore any evidence that it isn't true.

I can give you lots of examples that contradict Karma... take the example of US History. Europeans came to North America, stole the land and gravely mistreated the original owners. Then we stole land from Mexico with a brutal unjust war. And, we brought in human beings to work for us as slaves.

As a result of that we became one of the most prosperous, healthy nations in the history of the World and we consider ourselves the beacon of freedom and human goodness.

How is that Karma?

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

So cause and effect are religious principals now are they? No one but you has said that. I certainly didn't.

I don't believe in karma; I recognize it as the law of cause and effect. How you came away from that statement believing that it feels nice for me to believe in some reward for the righteous and punishment of the wicked is beyond me. Why did you attribute that to me?

I assume that you believe that if the effects of wrongdoing don't happen in the timeframe that you consider appropriate, it ain't happening.

3 Replies

@Glennn,

I don't believe in karma that way. I believe that our actions/decisions results in what happens in our lives. For example, my travels have allowed me to meet people and become friends with them. They happened to be on the same tour/trip/site or lived in a town where I visited; karma.
I have also met many people through a2k. Moscow(Sergei gave me a private tour of Moscow when I visited there.), Lippstadt, London, Manchester, Mexico City, New York City, Houston, Austin, and San Francisco.
I have friends I met outside of a2k in the US, London (Lindsay Hamilton is a professional singer in London; I met her on a cruise), Malaysia, Singapore, Cuba, Mexico, and Moscow (Oleg; I met in Cuba).
My travel buddy is Canadian, but lives in Loreto, Mexico. We have traveled all over Europe, South America and Asia. We're going to Cuba next month.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

As a result of that we became one of the most prosperous, healthy nations in the history of the World and we consider ourselves the beacon of freedom and human goodness.

If the U.S. has done as you say, then would you say that considering themselves the beacon of freedom and human goodness is a delusion?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

The so-called law of cause and effect is not a valid concept in modern science. You will have to define it better, but I don't think I believe it is a valud law.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Are you saying that cause and effect does not apply to human behavior or human action? Or are you saying that when there is an effect, there need be no cause?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Forget the operational details of interpreting the Schrodinger equation. I am arguing that as an atheist the justification for my rejection of 'God' is not based of 'scientific evidence' (which is employed in prediction and control) but is based on personal utility. The fact that science purports to deal with 'universals' could be merely a function of the commonality of human perceptual apparatus...in short it could be species specific. You are philosophically pursuing a 'scientific realism' path, whereas I am advocating a 'scientific utility' path which is a form of philosophical pragmatism. At the root of both theism and science are 'acts of faith' which admittedly only scientists are obliged to revise when paradigms shift, such revision often being almost religiously resisted ! (e.g. Einstein vs QM ).

You are of course entitled to your view, but I have argued extensively over the years here that atheists cannot use 'science' in their rejection of 'God', because 'existence' per se is a problematic concept for science.

2 Replies

@fresco,

I agree with you that science can not prove or disprove the existence of God. I think I agree with the idea that science works with universal laws... I don't like the anthropomorphic use of the word "purport", but I think that is a quibble of the wording rather than over the concept.

I don't think that existence is a problematic concept for science. Rather existence is a useless concept for science. It is irrelevant.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

I am arguing that as an atheist the justification for my rejection of 'God' is not based of 'scientific evidence' (which is employed in prediction and control) but is based on personal utility.

Interesting. Could you elaborate on that personal utility? I get that church is a bore and occasionally moral obligations of religion could be problematic but do you mean more than that?

1 Reply

Atheist don't need a leader, they believe in their own thinking, believe what they see only and hear. I'd like to call them realist.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Personal utility?
Unlike those who require a psychological crutch to bolster their self integrity or to justify their existence...

I don't need a 'next life' insurance policy because as far as I can tell, there isn't one.
I don't need an entity to incorporate 'love' as a useful fundamental value in social relationships .
I observe the devisiveness of theism as a source/promoter of historical and and current conflicts.
I note the nonsensical posturing of some theists against scientific progress such as evolutionary theory or cosmology.

So at the end of the day, since all we cognate humans have is concepts as the substance of thought, as concepts go, 'God' looks a pretty useless one at best, and socially pernicious at worst.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Words are important in revealing the parergon (=framework in Post Modern speak) of discourse. So use of the word 'universal' implies that we know what 'the universe' is, or where its boundaries lie. Since this is de facto not the case given the ever shifting paradigms of cosmology, the word 'purport' is justified in tempering the claims of some scientists about the 'universal status' and 'independence*' of what they call 'laws of nature'. I suggest that a more valid view is that we can only know what the universe looks like for us and that that view is shifting as we speak.(observer and observed co -evolve)
Obviously this consideration opens up the whole shooting match about 'observation', 'the nature of truth' , and what we mean by 'evidence'. It is only by refusing to engage in those grey areas that hold a blinkered view of 'science' as being a (or the) bastion of rationality.

*Your objection to anthropomorphism is covered by that assumption.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Of course your belief in Karma, as cause and effect, is a religious belief. You believe it because it is something you want to to believe. It feels nice to believe in some Principle of Goodness rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked. So, you ignore any evidence that it isn't true.

I can give you lots of examples that contradict Karma... take the example of US History. Europeans came to North America, stole the land and gravely mistreated the original owners. Then we stole land from Mexico with a brutal unjust war. And, we brought in human beings to work for us as slaves.

As a result of that we became one of the most prosperous, healthy nations in the history of the World and we consider ourselves the beacon of freedom and human goodness.

How is that Karma?

Manifest Destiny was our Karma. The good end was our karma. Those who impeded the Manifest Destiny was on another karma channel. It's really simple if one understands karma. The other interpretation is that Hashem wants you to spend inordinate amounts of time interacting with some who are less than appreciative of your wiseness. Putting a complicated equation on the blackboard avoids the simple chaotic reality for those who are not religion oriented. You were never a Boy Scout?

0 Replies

@Expert2,

Atheism betrays itself if it takes on a "church structure" and it certainly has betrayed itself. Best way to see this is to see how Hitchens atheist brother Peter was excommunicated when he converted to Jesus !

Such hypocrisy but I KNEW that would happen

1 Reply

@AugustineBrother,

yawn, the religious are trying pprojection.

If youre correct, whens the next meeting? and where.
Am I orthodox or reformed?

Ya really want what you cant have dont you?

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Quote:
A belief in karma is religion.

A belief in karma is a belief in a dynamic, not a religion.

This dynamic is not scientific.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

It doesn't need to be scientific, because it's based on belief.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

I thought I made it clear that I don't believe in karma; I recognize it as the law of cause and effect. In other words, I've taken the religious spin off it.

1 Reply

Atheism has finally found its spiritual leader

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know