Are you a bright?

[modest]

I think the Buddhist post was someone else.

 

It was something you quoted in post 24:

 

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[94] In addition, people in some regions of the world refrain from reporting themselves as atheists to avoid social stigma, discrimination, and persecution. A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica finds that the non-religious make up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure does not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists....

 

-

source

 

The last line points out "atheistic religions" which demonstrates in one phrase the need for a term other than atheist to refer to someone who rejects anything supernatural. As we've both now said, it all depends on which definition is used.

 

I think the unknowable can be deduced (refuted or acknowledged) by extrapolation; provided our understanding of the physical laws is complete - something which, hitherto, may not be the case. So your agnosticism is justified. If I have faith in one thing, it is that the natural laws (whether our understanding of them is complete or not) are operational at all times and everywhere. I am thus not agnostic.

 

I basically read what you're saying as: if we knew everything then nothing would be unknowable. I suppose this is true, but some extrapolations you make:

• "understanding of the physical laws is complete"
  
• "all times"
  
• "everywhere"

I find it difficult to make positive claims about.

 

I would never tell someone that God must not exist or that God is proven not to exist. A die-hard atheist might see this as some hesitation or doubt in my atheistic beliefs, but I see it as completely consistent and in part, a necessary truth that counters theism.

 

A huge flaw of religious logic is claiming knowledge of things with no evidence. I would feel vulnerable of making the same mistake to claim there must be no God. I must admit that I personally don't believe there is such a being, but I could never argue that case. I could never prove it - indeed, I could never KNOW it to be true. As such, I must be agnostic. Where you say the "unknowable can be deduced", I've yet to figure out how to do that.

 

This brings us back to my previous posts. Recall, it is the test of "extrapolation towards the past which gives real cause to suspect a weakness in the present conceptions of science. The beginning seems to present insurmountable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural." ...

 

Perhaps a new term to rally behind (Bright would have been good but its already taken) aught to be introduced for those, like myself, who disbelief in nonbaryonic cold dark matter and dark energy (along with everything else in the list above), for those who equate these entities and forces (perhaps erroneously) with the supernatural.

 

For some reason, my view of the world seems more natural. :)

 

I'm concerned about what you're doing here and even more so here:

 

Oh yes, the big bang (how could anyone forget the Mother of all events) on whom modern cosmology has pined all its hopes, renounces the explanation of its own origin. Like a new-god, this creature was of human invention, issue of human madness; like all gods. They are always looking back to the bright ages, when illusion and faith were a different question; raving of the reason was akin to god, and doubt was a sin. In the gruesome cosmological big bang singularity (or whatever it was, or wasn't) the exception has become the rule. The unattainable became reality!

 

If you believe in any of the above forces or entities, then you are, by definition, NOT a bright!

 

Equating scientific theories to supernatural beliefs is not an argument tactic I would personally use. I've seen you do this before many times. You point out that Lemaitre was a catholic priest and equate believing in the big bang theory with believing in God or being religious.

 

To me this seems like more of an ad hominem attack against the theory than a critical debate against its substance. I understand that this is not the only argument you bring to the table against BBT and I appreciate the lengths to which you go in making a rational debate against the theory. I don't think, however, comparing religion to standard cosmology is effective as a tool to accomplish your ends. The search to find answers in cosmology is just too strikingly different from religion.

 

-modest

[Moontanman]

:) I guess that makes me a naturalist nudist (of sorts):)

 

You too ! I wonder how many hypographers are nudists?

[coldcreation]

...

 

Equating scientific theories to supernatural beliefs is not an argument tactic I would personally use. I've seen you do this before many times. You point out that Lemaitre was a catholic priest and equate believing in the big bang theory with believing in God or being religious.

 

No, not at all. Apparently you've missed the point.

 

To be consistent across the board a naturalist (with or without a swimsuit) must desist from using the supernatural to describe what is observed in nature. I point out simply that cosmology, entre autre, is strewn with both supernatural substance and force (CDM and DE respectively; combined thought to make up at least 96% of the cosmos).

 

The big bang itself (ground zero, t = 0) is not on the table for debate since, as mentioned above, it has been removed from the big bang theory precisely for the reason of its metaphysicality (i.e., physics will not take us there, the laws of nature break down).

 

So a truly natural stance is one where the artificial (the supernatural or the metaphysical) is vacated completely and absolutely.

 

The ambiguity of the brights message is that the supernatural is rejected in the domain of theism (or religion), yet accepted in the domain of science.

 

This is not an ad hom, it is an observation.

 

 

CC

[modest]

No, not at all. Apparently you've missed the point.

 

Perhaps you are correct. My comments were off your point.

 

I think, however, intent should count for something. When a faith healer explains how spirits are accomplishing supernatural things it seems very different from a physicist who explains how string theory accomplishes very natural things. Neither strings nor spirits have been observed, but the intent of string theory is clearly to describe the natural world. The same goes for the Higgs boson and other such unverified scientific predictions.

 

BBT can clearly not be considered supernatural by any definition as it has made predictions that have been verified.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Perhaps you are correct. My comments were off your point.

 

Thank you for acknowledging that fact.

 

When it comes to observations, my goal (whether attainable or not) over the past decade (at least), has been to explain phenomena without the injunction of forces (e.g., DE), or entities (e.g., CDM) that cannot be verified empirically (even thought in principle it would be possible to falsify certain claims, e.g., if particle accelerators could attain a sufficient energy level).

 

 

I think, however, intent should count for something. When a faith healer explains how spirits are accomplishing supernatural things it seems very different from a physicist who explains how string theory accomplishes very natural things. Neither strings nor spirits have been observed, but the intent of string theory is clearly to describe the natural world. The same goes for the Higgs boson and other such unverified scientific predictions.

 

You are correct, the intent is not the same and should count for something.

 

Though from a physical standpoint I see little difference between extra dimensions (or strings) and spirits, since both remain forever hidden behind an opaque veil.

 

 

 

BBT can clearly not be considered supernatural by any definition as it has made predictions that have been verified.

 

Since you brought up the subject of Lemaître, and since I have in the past, let me add here that Lemaître was the first to recognize the metaphysical nature of the big bang (the primeval atom).

 

Here is my favorite passage on the subject, from Kragh, H. 1996, Cosmology and Controversy, The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe:

 

• “As a Catholic priest' date=' Lemaître was, of course, aware that discussions about the beginning of the world could not, in the minds of most people, be separated from the question of God’s creation of the world.” He was the first inclined to include this aspect in his discussion, but then decided not to. In the typescript of the note of March 1931, there is a paragraph reading: “I think that everyone who believes in a supreme being supporting every being and every acting, believes also that God is essentially hidden and may be glad to see how present physics provides a veil hiding the creation.” Lemaître crossed out the paragraph, not because it did not represent his conviction, but because he found it unwise to introduce God in his purportedly scientific sketch. (Kragh, 1996 p. 48)
  [*']

 

 

 

CC

[Pyrotex]

...The ambiguity of the brights message is that the supernatural is rejected in the domain of theism (or religion), yet accepted in the domain of science.

 

This is not an ad hom, it is an observation.

Errr... ahhh... hmmm...

NO.

 

The "Bright's message" is that the supernatural is rejected. See that little dot at the end of that last sentence? It's a "period".

 

What you appear to have done (correct me if I'm wrong) is to re-interpret what YOU think the Brights should have meant--a re-interpretation that essentially reverses their clearly defined intention--and by way of this re-interpretation, accuse them of "accepting the supernatural in the domain of science".

 

I believe this is called "the strawman fallacy".

[C1ay]

The ambiguity of the brights message is that the supernatural is rejected in the domain of theism (or religion), yet accepted in the domain of science.

 

:) From my POV:

 

I think nature is reality and the supernatural is fiction, i.e. everything real is natural.

[coldcreation]

...What you appear to have done (correct me if I'm wrong) is to re-interpret what YOU think the Brights should have meant

 

Not at all. I simply make an observation. It all boils down to wether or not you believe things like nonbaryonic dark matter are supernatural or not (i.e., real or not). I would say that there is nothing natural about it: Thus the ambiguity of the bright message. This is obviously a personal opinion, since there are those (brights included) that may think nonbaryonic dark matter is real (and thereby natural).

 

Unfortunately, until empirical verification can be made to confirm the existence of such things as nonbaryonic dark matter, the physical or metaphysical nature of such remains debatable (thus a question of belief).

 

The brights should address this uncomfortable issue, if they have not done so already.

 

 

--a re-interpretation that essentially reverses their clearly defined intention--

 

As I wrote above this is a personal opinion, not a re-interpretation.

 

Their clearly defined intention is to exclude from their world-view the non-natural. Yet there are plenty of things (forces, entities and an event) in the dominion of science that have not been shown to be natural (i.e., they may not exist at all), some of which (e.g., stings, extra dimensions) which cannot be detected empirically, even in principle.

 

...and by way of this re-interpretation, accuse them of "accepting the supernatural in the domain of science".

 

I have made my case.

 

 

I believe this is called "the strawman fallacy".

 

It could have been strawman, had I misrepresented the brights message, but that has not been the case. I simply point out the ambiguity in the bright stance relative to those forces or entities in the domain of physics that (at least for now) lay beyond the reach of natural laws, beyond general relativity, beyond thermodynamics and beyond quantum theory. My interpretation (if you want to call it that, but it's really more an opinion than anything else) is that the entities posted above are not real, not natural by any stretch of the imagination, i.e., they are supernatural, if you will.

 

So my critique is not of the brights, or of their message. I am a bright, after all. And I think the initiative is a great one. I am in fact a very vocal person (always have been) with respect to the promotion of the atheist cause. My critique is of mathematical aberrations, artifice, that attempt (even with good intentions) to explain observations. In my opinion, there is always a natural solution to be found. That is what should be sought. Certainly, to do otherwise would be a big mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pyrotex]

Not at all. I simply make an observation...

An interpretation is not an observation.

It could have been strawman, had I misrepresented the brights message, but that has not been the case...

Apparently that is your opinion.

I simply point out the ambiguity in the bright stance relative to those forces or entities in the domain of physics that ...lay beyond the reach of natural laws, beyond general relativity, beyond thermodynamics and beyond quantum theory. ...My critique is of mathematical aberrations, artifice, that attempt (even with good intentions) to explain observations. In my opinion, there is always a natural solution to be found. That is what should be sought...

I concur with this. I would say, however, that "there are domains of physics that currently lay beyond our understanding". To say that that implies they are "beyond the reach of natural laws" is a step too far. That is equivalent to assuming they are supernatural. Brights would (in my opinion) assume that they are explicable according to SOME natural laws, but we do not know what those laws are, and may currently have no clue where to look for them.

 

There may be phenomena in our Cosmos that we can never access. And yet, we can still refrain from assuming that the Flying (and Invisible) Spaghetti Monster did it.

[coldcreation]

There may be phenomena in our Cosmos that we can never access. And yet, we can still refrain from assuming that the Flying (and Invisible) Spaghetti Monster did it.

 

Obviously.

[coldcreation]

 

...Also, Richard Dawkins places himself at a 6 because he feels like I do, that anyone that proclaims to know that there is no God, without proof, does so in faith, just like those that believe. That is why I am an agnostic atheist.

 

I am a 7 precisely because there is no proof of the existence God. So the argument that "anyone who proclaims to know that there is no God, without proof, does so in faith, just like those that believe" is nonsensical.

 

This is in essence a reinstatement of the old dictum; the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Scientifically speaking, the absence of evidence is usually not a good sign. As Paul Dirac used to teach his students in the 1930’s: “That which is not observable does not exist.” (From Hoyle 1994).

 

That is why I am not agnostic. That is why I am an atheist (and a bright, though again, I have not yet registered).

 

 

CC

[modest]

As Paul Dirac used to teach his students in the 1930’s: “That which is not observable does not exist.” (From Hoyle 1994).

 

Must have been referring to his C-field :naughty:

 

-modest

[C1ay]

I am a 7 precisely because there is no proof of the existence God.

 

There is no "proof" of the existence of gravitons either. Can you say with absolute certainty that they do not exist?

 

So the argument that "anyone who proclaims to know that there is no God, without proof, does so in faith, just like those that believe" is nonsensical.

 

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

 

It is not nonsensical at all for those that are true to the scientific method. There is not and cannot be any proof that God does not exist and the absolute belief that God does not exist can only be one of faith because it is unprovable. I do share your belief that there is no God but like Dawkins, I place myself at a 6 only because I acknowledge the fact that it is unprovable. I could not back up such a claim with science so I refrain from making it.

[coldcreation]

There is no "proof" of the existence of gravitons either. Can you say with absolute certainty that they do not exist?

 

There is proof however that gravity is a curved spacetime phenomenon. That is the direction that research should (and does) explore further and expand upon in the hopes of someday resolving the exact mechanism involved.

 

There is no evidence, on the other hand, that gravitons exist. For that reason the graviton smacks of metaphysics.

 

 

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

 

Yes, of course, that is the definition of faith.

 

I have a firm disbelief in anything for which there is no proof. That is not faith, it is zero faith. That is the naturalist position.

 

 

It is not nonsensical at all for those that are true to the scientific method. There is not and cannot be any proof that God does not exist and the absolute belief that God does not exist can only be one of faith because it is unprovable. I do share your belief that there is no God but like Dawkins, I place myself at a 6 only because I acknowledge the fact that it is unprovable. I could not back up such a claim with science so I refrain from making it.

 

Something that is unprovable, even in principle, is outside the domain of science, i.e., it is nowhere. In another way, from a scientific standpoint, it can be argued that God does not exist (absolutely not exist) since by definition there is no conceivable way to falsify, refute, or acknowledge empirically His (or Her's) existence, even in principle: Something in direct violation of the scientific method.

 

And so, because the concept of god resides forever beyond reach of empirical testing, thus outside of physics (nowhere), the conclusion can only be that It is not real.

 

That is why I am a 7, a bright, and a 100% atheist.

 

 

PS. En passent, I point out that the hidden dimensions of string theory fall into the same category, as do many, if not all, of the entities and forces listed above.

 

You can give your heart to Jesus, but your *** belongs to science.

 

 

 

 

CC

*

[freeztar]

I consider myself a Bright, as well as an agnostic atheist.

 

I found C1ay's last post to be spot-on!

 

CC, if we disagree on our degree of atheism, then we disagree. It seems that 100% atheists are content in their faith of disbelief while agnostic atheists maintain skepticism. I suppose it's just a different way of approaching reality. :)

 

Either way, I see both groups as Brights. ;)

[C1ay]

There is proof however that gravity is a curved spacetime phenomenon. That is the direction that research should (and does) explore further and expand upon in the hopes of someday resolving the exact mechanism involved.

 

That's all true but it still avoids the answer to the question. Can you say with absolute certainty that gravitons do not exist?

[coldcreation]

That's all true but it still avoids the answer to the question. Can you say with absolute certainty that gravitons do not exist?

 

Good question, and a difficult one to answer. I am inclined, like you, to answer in the negative: No, I cannot be sure gravitons do not exist. At the same time, I can say with a 100% confidence level, that until a shred of evidence is presented in favor of their existence, my "faith" in their nonexistence will be absolute. Or, my faith in their existence is zero, i.e., there is no faith involved. This like saying, until an Ergofarquad is discovered, I will assume (with a 100% confidence level) that Ergofarquads do not exist. Call it faith, or whatever you want. I call it pragmatism: stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value; the meaning of an idea or a proposition lies in its observable practical consequences; a practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems. [Edit: These are standard definitions of pragmatism that can be found online.]

 

Using this approach, I can say that gravitons do NOT exist. If one is every discovered, I will consider the evidence that either substantiates of refutes them. The same principle holds for strings (or extra dimensions), nobaryonic cold dark particles, dark energy, black hole singularities, spacetime wormholes, magnetic monopoles, gravitational waves, and so on.

 

In sum, to be consistent across the board (when it comes to the natural stance) any world-view free of supernatural or mystical forces, and entities must exclude the above items (i.e., these forces or entities should be thrown in the same basket as Gods, ghosts and goblins). This is where I perceive an ambiguity in the bright message.

 

 

 

CC