• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why atheism entails the possibility of God

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
the most basic definition of atheism is lack of a deity belief.
Which is a far far cry from the definition you present in the OP
I'd take exception to that definition, as it implies lack of information and that's not atheism.

But that's just me.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Jeez - you don't give up do you? OK - go on - define my religion for me...but that is exactly the point of about half of the posts in this thread so far...defining 'theism' as the opposite of 'atheism' - it is not that and never was and if you don't know that, you don't even know what the most basic definition of atheism is.

Didn't say theism is necessarily the opposite of atheism, though I guess technically it is. atheism is the rejection of all beliefs in deities, no matter which form they take. I have no interest in defining anyone's religion. I ask them to tell me what they believe. That is the point.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Didn't say theism is necessarily the opposite of atheism, though I guess technically it is.
Technically it isn't...technically...
atheism is the rejection of all beliefs in deities, no matter which form they take.
which would include deism, polytheism, pantheism...etc. etc. etc...all of which are (or may be in some cases) non-theistic beliefs about deity...
I have no interest in defining anyone's religion.
But you did - you just defined all beliefs in deity as theism and they're not
I ask them to tell me what they believe.
...which is precisely what I did by quoting an atheist organizations definition rather than inventing my own...and that, as you put it "is the point" - the defense rests your honor.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Didn't say theism is necessarily the opposite of atheism, though I guess technically it is. atheism is the rejection of all beliefs in deities, no matter which form they take. I have no interest in defining anyone's religion. I ask them to tell me what they believe. That is the point.
I consider myself an atheist, but I don't reject a belief in a deity, I just don't currently have one. My lack of belief is provisional, pending the discovery of evidence.
How about an isolated tribe or someone raised in a commune somewhere, unexposed to the concept of deity? You can't reject what you're unaware of.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
If there is 'no idea' connoted by it what is the point of defining one's worldview with the term? You might just as well define yourself as someone who does not knit or someone who does not play croquet
Precisely. Not being a theist isn't a worldview any more than not playing croquet is. If nobody had started believing in the existence of gods and became theists we wouldn't need a word for people who are not theists just to distinguish them from theists.
I agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - hence my argument that the very extraordinary radical emergence (aka miracle) of 'experience' (or consciousness etc.) from a more fundamental reality that is entirely non-experiential requires extraordinary evidence that materialism fails to provide.
Nothing to do with theism/atheism.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago. Sorry its a bit long - but feel free to tear my argument to shreds...

The following partial definitions of atheism and materialism are taken from the American Atheists web pages:

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.


Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose…

I think the partial definition of materialism quoted is a denial of the very means by which the author has constructed the definition. That, I think, is the fundamental problem of atheistic materialism – it fails to account for the inherent purposiveness and creativeness that its proponents quite deliberately employ in order to formulate and express the principles of their own “mental attitude”.

We know, from even casual observation, that, “the whole” is often, if not always, “greater than the sum of its parts” – that is holistic emergence. It happens, so obviously as to be almost unremarkable, at every level of reality we have yet observed. A trio of lonely quarks choreograph their dance to form the original ménage-a-trois, in the process creating a new, emergent level of reality with properties that are unpredictable from the observation of quarks in isolation (if that were even possible). The three become one – a proton, and they are quickly joined by a fourth quark, an electron, who never quite makes it into the inner love triangle but is content to waltz around the periphery giving rise to another novel emergence – a hydrogen atom.

Two of these join together with another more complex atom, oxygen, to form a water molecule and billions of these cooperate to give rise to yet another emergent property not implicit in the underlying level – liquidity. Is the propensity for water (and other molecules) to form liquids under certain conditions an immanent property of the underlying, more fundamental reality, or is it an emergent property that arises from the complexity of the ratios and relationships between the component “particles”?

We could trace the course of emergence onward and upward through the various levels of reality from atoms and molecules, via cells and organs, to organisms, communities and biospheres. At each higher level, higher level functions and properties emerge that correspond approximately to information (data), communication, signal-processing and eventually consciousness and mind. And we must then ask the same question – is the propensity for complex organisms to develop consciousness and mind an inherent, immanent property of the underlying levels of reality, or does it emerge from the complexity of the system?

But at this level, the question takes on a more significant import. If we say consciousness and mind are inherent and implicit in the sub-structure of the universe that gave rise to them, we are subscribing to a kind of panpsychism. If we say it is emergent from the complexity of the system, then why stop there? Why insist that the universe that gave birth to human intelligence is, in its entirety, nothing more than the simple sum of the nuts and bolts it is made of when there is abundant evidence to prove that almost everything that it is made of is so much more than the sum of the component parts?

We could argue forever about terminology – about whether or not it is appropriate to use the word “God” to describe either the fundamentally panpsychical reality or the “more than the sum of its parts” emergent holistic and obviously creative nature of the whole universe – but in a universe that has apparently, to take a strictly atheist/materialist viewpoint, randomly given rise to the emergence of life and mind, who could realistically deny the possibility that God may emerge (if s/he hasn't already)?

Let me ask the moon. .... nope, no answer. So, this emergence is probably still missing in action.

I hope it will start to appear before entropy has reached its maximum. Or before all other galaxies fall beyond our causality horizon, and cannot possibly communicate between each others. Not sure what she can do against that process, though.

It will be like Hal 9000 . Maybe she will also start singing "Daisy" when the time comes.

Ciao

- viole
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with theism/atheism.
Neither was my OP - it was you (among others) that took the conversation into the 'theism/atheism' lets-all-talk-about-definitions-none-of-us-understand off-topic non-topic - I was trying to get it back on topic. So there! :p

Let me ask the moon. ....
:) at last, a vaguely sensible response - but how do we know that it hasn't emerged yet? Can you detect thoughts - even human ones (hell - even your own) - unless they are encoded symbolically and physically in sound waves or writing...? What's the qualitative difference between, say, the electrochemical communication between human neurons and the electrochemical communication between trees in a forest? Or a colony of ants? Why does it have to stop there? Is chemistry the only fundamental way of communicating? How do 'entangled particles' 'know' which way to spin (for example)? I'll give the moon five points for each correct answer.

Ciao!
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
:) at last, a vaguely sensible response -

Thanks, I guess.

but how do we know that it hasn't emerged yet?

We don't. But there are many things that are logically possible and we do not know whether they exist. For instance, how do we know that Mickey Mouse does not exist in a planet of the Andromeda galaxy?

I think it is wise to fall back into skepticism when an extraordinary claim does not have accompanying extraordinary evidence. We might not always be right, but chances are that we are.

Can you detect thoughts - even human ones (hell - even your own) - unless they are encoded symbolically and physically in sound waves or writing...?

I don't understand what you mean with detecting my own thoughts. I am my own thoughts.

And I am able to detect thoughts just by looking at a face.

What's the qualitative difference between, say, the electrochemical communication between human neurons and the electrochemical communication between trees in a forest? Or a colony of ants? Why does it have to stop there? Is chemistry the only fundamental way of communicating?

No. and you make a good point about the ants colony. I actually see the whole colony as a separate, more advanced, kind of being.

But there are limits. I believe the limitation is given by the topology of the interconnections between the parts and how fast communication can travel from one part to the other.

I doubt I could function properly if my brain's left hemisphere is located 10 light years from the right one.

How do 'entangled particles' 'know' which way to spin (for example)? I'll give the moon five points for each correct answer.
Ciao!

If you think that entanglement can be used as a way to tranfer information between two remote objects, then abandon any hope.

I think it is a mistake to see two entangled particles as two indipendent objects that instantaneously coordinate their change of state.

Two entangled particles are actually one object. One object with two possible states: up/down and down/up. See it as an object with contraints between their parts. Like a solid object. In case of a solid object, all its particles will also have at once their state determined by only a few of them.

There is also a theorem that proves that entanglement is useless as a mean to transmit useful information.

Ciao

- viole
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
which would include deism, polytheism, pantheism...etc. etc. etc...all of which are (or may be in some cases) non-theistic beliefs about deity...
Deism, polytheism and pantheism are all specific types of theistic beliefs.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you mean with detecting my own thoughts. I am my own thoughts.
Yeah - OK - carelessly worded question - what I was getting at is that I only know thoughts exist because - as you put it - I am my thoughts. I am not a forest even if I am in one, any more than the neurons that line my digestive tract are 'me' - I could be part of a (higher level) 'thinking being' and not know it. There is no objective means of detecting 'thoughts'. And whilst I agree on the skepticism thing, there is evidence that colonies of ants and colonies of trees are able to communicate between themselves. I am not suggesting there ARE no limits, I am just expressing a healthy skepticism about the arbitrary limits that are normally accepted.

I doubt I could function properly if my brain's left hemisphere is located 10 light years from the right one.
Yes - I thought about that too and (trying hard to dismiss the evidence that some people around here - present company obviously excepted - seem to have their hemispheres separated by millions of light years) I decided it doesn't matter. This is again is entirely a matter of scale and not a qualitative barrier. 'Simultaneity' of experience is an illusion anyway - my left brain is separated from my right brain temporally and my thoughts arise from sequential not simultaneous processes so I don't think distance is a barrier - lack of genuine connectivity might though - but this might not have been the case in the earliest phases of the universe. Mind you - I got stuck on that point for a few years before I figured it out so you might still have a point.

If you think that entanglement can be used as a way to tranfer information
Nope definitely not what I was saying - I was talking only about the 'particles' themselves but this is probably a distraction anyway so I'll just leave that there.

We don't. But there are many things that are logically possible and we do not know whether they exist. For instance, how do we know that Mickey Mouse does not exist in a planet of the Andromeda galaxy?
Aha! You can't get me that easily - we know for certain that Mickey Mouse doesn't live in the Andromeda Galaxy because he's been in movies since 1928. Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away so Walt Disney would have had to be more than two and a half million years old in 1928 for the signal to have got here by then - in fact he was only 27. So there! :p
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Deism, polytheism and pantheism are all specific types of theistic beliefs.
Er...no...they're not - not etymologically, not historically, not theologically and not terminologically. You are making the (apparently but worryingly) common mistake of defining disparate religious ideas as the opposite of atheism. That is not how the words emerged, it is not what was understood by the people who coined them, it is not what is understood by people who actually study theology and it is not what the people who profess them mean by them. And, as far as I can see, it is based on a misconception of what the word 'atheism' means in the first place. Atheism is not the opposite of theism, atheism is the lack of belief in any kind of deity - theistic or otherwise. Of course you are quite at liberty to redefine the term 'atheism' in your own way - but I don't think you should project that onto the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others. Do you?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Er...no...they're not - not etymologically, not historically, not theologically and not terminologically. You are making the (apparently but worryingly) common mistake of defining disparate religious ideas as the opposite of atheism. That is not how the words emerged, it is not what was understood by the people who coined them, it is not what is understood by people who actually study theology and it is not what the people who profess them mean by them. And, as far as I can see, it is based on a misconception of what the word 'atheism' means in the first place. Atheism is not the opposite of theism, atheism is the lack of belief in any kind of deity - theistic or otherwise. Of course you are quite at liberty to redefine the term 'atheism' in your own way - but I don't think you should project that onto the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others. Do you?
People can call themselves what they want, of course, but pantheism, panentheism, polytheism all have 'theism' in there because it is a theistic belief. Deism might have an etymologically different origin, but that doesn't change that nobody should be surprised to hear philosophers and theologians call it 'a kind of theism' as theism is commonly understood to mean 'belief in a deity' regardless of if that deity is a personal or impersonal deity. And in that respect teah, atheism and non-theism are the same and opposite of theism.
 
Top