Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method • Hacker News Board

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#101

Post by visarga » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 5:23 AM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #26

mindcrime wrote: post #3

OK, he's obviously a brilliant guy, but I find his argument about atheism pretty weak... or rather, I should say that it only makes sense at a pretty abstract level. And that, IMO, is basically the same level of abstraction where one can make a compelling argument that science rests on (a form of) faith just like religion does (but possibly not the same form). Anyway, "belief" in the supernatural makes, as far as I c…

"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted scientific principles." ... Well our current flavour of Science is effectively materialist and it starts effectively with the assumption that 'the universe is made up of a bunch of laws' as we try to discover them. It postulates a priori a specific metaphysical position that immediately negates anything else ... so it's going to be impossi…

> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem'

We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundamental internal purpose is to exist and to make more of ourselves (just another way of saying 'to exist').

We're agents learning to sense and act in a way that would maximise our future rewards, reward types which have been selected by evolution to serve self replication.

I don't see nihilism in this position, maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life.

> not only is there no 'supernatural' - there is effectively not even 'intelligence' or 'life' or possibly 'consciousness'. Just the appearance of those things.

There is, we have the ability to learn to sense and act based on our rich environment and complex brains. Our emotions encode our current rewards and the prediction of future rewards. We learn the value function and the policy function that would allow us to continue to exist and self replicate. They form what we call 'consciousness' and 'intelligence'.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#102

Post by sonnyblarney » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 6:43 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #101

sonnyblarney wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted scientific principles." ... Well our current flavour of Science is effectively materialist and it starts effectively with the assumption that 'the universe is made up of a bunch of laws' as we try to discover them. It postulates a priori a specific metaphysical position that immediately negates anything else ... so it's going to be impossi…

> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundam…

"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power"

", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life"

Maybe you've misunderstood my statement.

Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'.

Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behave according to specific rules we will eventually discover. It's a premise, not a fact.

The materialist premise is exceedingly useful for many things, but in it's extreme, it's ridiculously stupid as it denies what we accept as a very rational fact: that we are alive.

In other words - because we can't explain life with physics, doesn't mean life doesn't exist, it means that physics is probably the wrong tool for the job.

The mental trap of materialism is strong, sometimes we get caught in it like a Chinese finger trap: it's deeply nihilist to propose that we, as a life forms, don't even exist, and that the words we write, the thoughts we have, essentially don't exist, or are at most only the result of random interactions.

It's also exceedingly hypocritical to live life with purpose or expression, and then somehow to have some strange belief that it is utterly random and meaningless. I think it's actually totally irrational and illogical.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#103

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 6:56 AM UTC

rdruxn wrote: post #20

hota_mazi wrote: post #5

> it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic. Surprising for someone with his background to not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and obviously not understanding that these two are not mutually exclusive. > "I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” That's absolutely not what atheism is. Atheism is a single position…

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some e…

It requires a double negative "a belief in non-belief" which is an absurdity to make an argument. Nothing more.

If I am to change my position of non belief in faeries, gods, little green men, moons made of green cheese, and telepathy all it takes is a little repeatable evidence. That is not belief in their absence. When the evidence is there I will be a) very surprised b) changing my opinion.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#104

Post by majewsky » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 10:14 AM UTC

Latty wrote: post #69

CharlesColeman wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers) The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f. You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you opp…

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

It absolutely is Boolean logic, if you know how to write it down:

  Definition 1 = Belief(not god)
  Definition 2 = not Belief(god)

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#105

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #26

mindcrime wrote: post #3

OK, he's obviously a brilliant guy, but I find his argument about atheism pretty weak... or rather, I should say that it only makes sense at a pretty abstract level. And that, IMO, is basically the same level of abstraction where one can make a compelling argument that science rests on (a form of) faith just like religion does (but possibly not the same form). Anyway, "belief" in the supernatural makes, as far as I c…

"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted scientific principles." ... Well our current flavour of Science is effectively materialist and it starts effectively with the assumption that 'the universe is made up of a bunch of laws' as we try to discover them. It postulates a priori a specific metaphysical position that immediately negates anything else ... so it's going to be impossi…

[deleted]

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#106

Post by candiodari » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #104

Latty wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

It absolutely is Boolean logic, if you know how to write it down: Definition 1 = Belief(not god) Definition 2 = not Belief(god)

Even for the most basic of logic positions this is now considered outright false. Here are all the possible answers for Boolean predicate:

1) true 2) false 3) independent

and, sort of,

4) unknown

In a parallel dimension (using the true mathematical meaning of the word dimension here) there is also, about every predicate:

1) it is theoretically possible to know 2) it is theoretically impossible to know 3) it is impossible to know if it is theoretically possible to know (thanks a LOT, Godel)

Note that in the case where it is impossible to know, there still exists an answer. There is just some reason we won't ever know the answer. If this is relevant, then of course the practical answer to your Boolean predicate is "unknown". In some cases it may be useful to pretend we know the answer, and expand math as if we know the answer.

So yes, we even have claims that we consider "true, yet impossible to know". What that means is that we add a fact we can't prove or even prove as non-problematic as an axiom (e.g. the existence of large cardinal numbers. And of course, an honest mathematician would say that since the first 3 large cardinal number axioms were proven to be disasters, odds seem pretty good the current one is a catastrophe in some currently unknown way as well. But maybe we got lucky this time)

And in yet ANOTHER dimension you have the rather important fact:

1) it is practically possible to know 2) it is not practically possible to know

Here answer 2 is pretty nice, because that provides an argument, a useful dimension where we could research into expanding our practical options to practice science. Or perhaps I should say, it gives us a very practical reason to try to make one particular expansion of our knowledge. A LOT of claims in quantum physics fall into the 2) category and there's lots of research into finding the answers anyway. And sometimes a kindergarten teacher in Italy thinks of a way to ...

So this means there are 12 possible answers to every predicate in maths. 3 basic ones. And there are many fun things that can be said about every independent claim, because then of course that predicate becomes an argument to change maths to change the answer..

So where does a claim about God fall ?

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#107

Post by Latty » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:00 PM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #104

Latty wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

It absolutely is Boolean logic, if you know how to write it down: Definition 1 = Belief(not god) Definition 2 = not Belief(god)

The point stands no matter how you write it - those two things are not equivalent.

Case in point, an agnostic fits one of those, but not the other. An agnostic does not believe in a god, but they also don't believe in "not god".

If those two things are equivalent, then "not Belief(god)" and "not Belief(not god)" couldn't both be true (as they are for agnostics).

The issue is not that you need to find a way to frame it as boolean logic, the issue is that we don't believe in boolean logic. Belief has more than two states.

Of course, this is all a side track because the central point remains: believing there is no god does not require disregarding the possibility of being wrong any more than believing in anything does. It simply means you think it is the most reasonable belief given what you know at that time, as with any belief.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#108

Post by jddj » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #102

visarga wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundam…

"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life" Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behav…

If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc., even in a universe where everything else is also just a differently shaped bag of atoms.

There's nothing inherently more meaningful about the supernatural than the natural.

This particular bag of atoms, for instance, derives much more pleasure from acknowledging itself as such, than from deciding that it is instead some platonically ideal "being" who was created by an ideal God who always was and whose mere existence eliminates every trace of the incomprehensible, random and emergent beauty that exists in this brutally materialistic framework in one fell swoop.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#109

Post by CharlesColeman » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 3:27 PM UTC

amazingman wrote: post #99

CharlesColeman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even taking that perspective, the definitions are still semantically equivalent. > You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions. I never did that.

You didn’t address the Boolean example, either. Do you actually think the following evaluates to `true`? `(god_exists == false) == (god_exists != true)`

Yes, especially when you write it like that.

I get that some people really want to make a distinction, and such a distinction can exist, I just don't think it's reflected in the texts that they claimed it is, especially given their context.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#110

Post by tivert » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

jddj wrote: post #108

sonnyblarney wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life" Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behav…

If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philoso…

> If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philosophy, politics, raising a family etc...

...and slavery.