Is atheism predicated partially on the belief in evolution and the current prevailing views of science.
If so, then such a belief is subject to drastic changes as discoveries and theories
have recently arose that shatter the paradigm that is the foundation of such a belief:
Discoveries keep pushing back the inception of civilization, indefinitely back in time
Evidence of coastal civilizations existing during the ice age are arising in now inundated coastal region due to rising seas.
The concept of a missing link is no longer postulated as a bush of hominids lineages walked the earth. With what was once considered ancestors, actually being contemporary with postulated descendants. A bush of hominids actually existed as recently as 30,0000 B.C.E.
Though theories of evolution abound no working scientific model exists for the emergence of life.
Our very existence is interwoven with the anthropic principle. As such this has required scientist to postulate the multiverse to explain how the anthropic principle is mindlessly satisfied by nature. However this just substitutes one unfalsifiable believe for another.
In truth, Darwin's world has been shattered and the truth has become intractable. Even as we cope with dark matter and energy. Terms that falsely connote that we have defined them, when in fact they are no more apparent than God. As such new scientific theories continue to emerge based on the inadequacy of the standard model. This will continue into infinitum since, as God there is no means to detect these alleged entities with scientific instrumentation.
If memory serves, it was a cobalt bomb, capable of distroying the planet. The movie 'Beneath the Planet of the Apes'.
I thought Michael knew everything, but this might be one area of limited utility.
Yes, 'God can be anything', if you need such an idea to start with. For some it could be a mountain of 'inspirational reading' obtained from your local Winco or Walmart.
I expect that fictional, radiation deformed, human beings, with a 'what if' cobalt bomb, could be bad examples for the 'God can be anything'.
I remember a story from a friend of mine trying to join a fraternity years ago. The rush leader stated that ' I would rather you kneal down before a telephone pole, than not believe in God'. My friend looked for and found the exit rather fast after that! The expect that the free beer was not a great draw anyway.
I'm not sure wha't your main thrust is here, and so I won't attempt to answer your question at all; I just want to point out that your diatribe against the idea of unfalsifiable scientific 'beliefs' is ill-founded.
First off, the difference between the idea of dark matter and the idea of God is in how they were arrived at. The belief in God, as has been amply demonstrated by the historical record, is a result of an evolutionary tendency to attribute actions and events to an Agent, which is generalized far beyond its intended evolutionary function by its operation in a brain advanced enough to ask questions like 'why me?'. The concept of dark matter, however, was arrived at through the strict logic of mathematics, in which everything is derived from first principles. Astronomers studying various topics are all forced to postulate such a concept to account for velocities of galaxies, gravitational effects, and the rate of expansion of the universe, which are different than what one would expect, knowing what we do. Note; dark matter is not a doctrine or dogma, it does not have properties per se, but is simply a convienent label for the unknown phenomena causing things we can't explain. Nothing about this suggests that the idea of dark matter is irreducable to simpler concepts, or even that 'dark matter' as one might picture it in the mind's eye really exists.
Also, nothing about the Anthropic principle demands belief in a multiverse. This is simply a variant of the anthropic principle which seeks to make is seem statistically likely that life will arise, using an idea, the multiverse, which was arrived at independantly, via the same process I described above. It is also possible that the universe we live in is really 'everything', and that we fit it perfectly because we evolved in it. The anthropic principle can be true without the multiverse theory; they have nothing to do with each other.
Finally, I would point out that there are plenty of things that we can't see, detect or even measure that have nonetheless been proven beyond reasonable doubt via ingenious experimentation based on working theories of the world (and that there's no reason to believe that your alleged entities won't follow suit). The example that springs to mind is wave-particle duality. The idea implicitly defies measurement, but it explains a variety of phenomena succinctly, and is the only possible answer to the double-slit experiment. Why would you, like those who said the duality principle could inherently never be demonstrated, stake yourself on such historically unfavored ground? There is middle ground between accepting everything you're told (God, dark matter and all) and being a complete skeptic. We commonly refer to it as a scientific worldview, and it involves accepting things that we can't prove aren't true (am I a brain in a vat to whom sensory information is just being fed? do I have free will?) and being flexibly skeptical in your approach to all else.
Einstein was opposed to the school of Copenhagen and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
I on the other hand embrace it. As Roger Penrose speaks of the Hilbert space being an actual higher reality from which event space is derived. He goes on to postulate that quasi-crystal are merely collapse formations from their wave forms in Hibert space. Lets do a thought experiment and conjecture that Hilbert space is that timeless higher realities from which God creates all things in event space. Moreover I view a light cone as locally demonstrating how we are locked in a 4 space hypersphere. a photon being massless can strike the boundary at the speed of light and with time being rendered stationary maps the boundary in wave form and thus the light cone. Theorist now speculate on a Fifth force nickname the Chameleon force to account of Dark matter and Energy. Dr Lennard Susskind is deeply concern with the Anthropic Principle and offers only the Multiverse to ward off all Theist proses, and he is and avowed atheist.
Interesting. Great qoutes! I do wonder if understanding is some how attached to these via Michael? Does Michael have the needed mathematics background, or is this a show of a good enough research skill?
Recently, I have been reading that Humbolt space has been recently used as an attempt to understand human dreams. With the expectation that dreams might offer insights into human mental processes that could imply something like higher deminsional processing. Has Michael studied modeling with attention to understanding complex systems? I don't know, but he writes a good line.
Most of us can dazzle with genius, or baffle with bullshit. Michael's material and prose does beg this question.
Yes I have studied and performed complex modeling. Your powers of inference are exceptional. Many years ago I submitted a paper to the Journal Physical Review in which I postulate a Multispatial frame work from which many nonlinear systems can be model.
I also encompassesd Hilbert space in the framework to account for quasi-crystals.
But I first demonstrated the theory on Trinomino systems. Trinominos tiles space aperiodically as oppose to squares. Squares will always result in a checkerboard pattern and thus lead to invariant solutions. Trinomino how ever result in indeterminate systems. You will not know what the pattern is (a priori) until you tile the plane. Thus they are analogous to quasicrystals that tile 3-space. In short as we ordinarily in mathematic speak of the linear independence of vectors. I speak of the linear independents of separate vector spaces composed of varying numbers of base vectors. Through linear transforms of these vector spaces I show that indeterminate systems can be modeled.
This paper was just for fun. I model complex systems in my career also.
If this is the case then why do you trouble yourself with christian minutia? Surely something more is at work? During some of the 'work' I have done in logic, it seemed that the 'god' concept might not be deletable from our alternatives. Once created, indesidabilty would sustain it, and emotional dependency would promote it.
James, can you elaborate on that? Do you mean that once factored in a potentiality, it is difficult to remove from the options? What do you mean with this part " indesidabilty would sustain it, and emotional dependency would promote it".
I am taking emotional dependency to be that it creates confirmation bias, but I want to make sure I understand you right.
I am suggesting that in the assence of evidence for 'God/god' we might not be able to delete the idea from our list of possible origins. This does not mean it is 'true' (scientificatly verified), only that the probability of being 'true' seems to be very low. I fall back to the 'the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence'.
If we can't decide on the truth statis of an assertion(assuming that the existence of 'God/god' is an assertion), then are we condemned to preserve the assertion rationally and in all honesty, till that truth statis is determined?
I think for theists, about the only thing that perserves the assertion is some type of emotional dependency. This could be considered an assertion on my part, but watching how the debates are pursued concerning the assertion, the 'emotional dependency' could be very likely. I expect that theist 'history' is used as a means to compose a narrative that acts as 'evidence'.
While I think that the assertion of 'God/god' has a very low truth statis, it is unclear if I should ignore it totally. Sadly this could condemn me to an agnostic commitment, which does conflict with my desire for certainty. May be this is my own hangup, having been mentally and intellectually compromised by my catholic family experience?
This might not be very helpful, but could offer a window into my own thinking.
If you saw the movie Prometheus. Scientist travel far and wide to find the creator. Having an IQ four standard deviations above average I grow restless with paradigms that the rank and file swallow. but back to tiling space, the neural network is a monster of aperiodic tiling. I would not even intimate modeling it with my mathematical construct.
Is intelligence in the stratasphere a freak accident of nature? Intellect to divide the atom and send probes outside of the solar system is not concomitant to evolutionary pressures. It comes from above. In Prometheus they agree.
But how do you settle on an answer? Why do you find it reasonable to think that it must be Yhwh, rather than thinking "We don't know who or what it is"?
The universe doesn't say "Made by Yhwh".
Even without evolution, the bible still has a lot of problems. And you seem to filter those problems away in a way that does not account for the potentiality that it is wrong, so that it can fit your present theological paradigm.
That isn't an honest way to approach it.
Maybe not, but how can you avoid the sensation that we are attempting to claw our way back to the creator and it is in our genes to explore the universe. This is an unearthly desire that in no shape form you could relate to our nearest cousins. Tell an ape that we bound for the next galaxy.
Michael, how can you in honesty trust a sensation?
In order to trust, you have to state to yourself "This sensation is reliable"
In order to do that, you need to have something to substantiate the sensation is reliable.
Probability doesn't do it. The mormons say the same thing about the "burning in their bosom". We know enough about biology to know that "sensation" has a lot to do with the chemical reward process in the brain. We also know other people get that sensation in different religions.
So because other people from other beliefs claim the same thing about a sensation, and their claims are untrustworthy, to trust a sensation requires a good reason to do it. Otherwise you have just lied to yourself about the reliability of a sensation.
So what that essentially says is that the way God set it up, we have to rely on deceptions about probability and reasonability to get our minds to come to belief in God.
If God is there, the very nature of sin has to be disorder, because he sets everything up how it should be. Why would God use sin to convert his followers, instead of truth?
As for the ape part, an ape doesn't have the brain development we do. No other animal does. How does that not account for why an ape can't understand it?