Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[pocaracas]

I'm still dumbfucked with your wording...

That’s not surprising. Being confused is one consequence of an inconsistent worldview.

Are saying that the space-time continuum is discreet and disjointed?

Not unless it has a transcendently applied order. Take your pick.

Or are you just saying that you have no idea what electro-magnetic, electro-weak, or strong interactions are?

Don’t be silly. These describe relationships within time-space and they have specific values. Once again you assert that the regularity of physical reality is a brute fact that just is. The question remains, why do constants remain constant. The presumed answer is because they always have been in the past…i.e. by inductive reasoning. And the validity of inductive reasoning rests on a transcendent force that maintains that consistency and prevents the physical universe from dissolving into utter random chaos. But if you deny any transcendent influence your undermine the validity knowledge acquired by induction.

Ready to answer my two questions yet?

When you ask "why", you presuppose there's a reason, which means there's some reasoning entity behind the process.
So... loaded question.
Please restate it in a valid manner.

Still, I'll humor you a bit...
Why do you assume there a reason to the perceived order of the Universe?
See? this is a valid "why" question.

The Universe is the way it is, because it is the way it is... had it been any different, we'd be asking the same questions about it.... or we'd never exist. Apo has dissected the reasoning behind those physical constants and their impossibly narrow range in which we'd get a functioning Universe... look it up... it wasn't that long ago... 1 month, tops.

[Ryantology]

In other words, if belief in god is necessary to believe (x)

Nothing in the world outside of specific parts of Abrahamic dogma requires belief in the Abrahamic god. You can't be an atheist if you believe in Abrahamic dogma. A non-sequitor indeed. Lately, you seem to be suffering a Strodel-style breakdown.

[Neo-Scholastic]

... loaded question. Please restate it in a valid manner.

Nice dodge. As I recall the two questions were pretty straight forward. 1) Do you believe in the validity of inductive reasoning? 2) Are you an atheist?

Why do you assume there a reason to the perceived order of the Universe?

Not exactly how I would put it. I would say the universe displays types of cause, final and formal, that do not already inhere to it. These types are necessary for the physical universe to manifest order. Thus final and formal causes are the reason behind the perceived order of the universe.

The Universe is the way it is, because it is the way it is...

Once again, asserting this is a brute fact. You are avoiding the problem.

Apo has dissected the reasoning behind those physical constants and their impossibly narrow range in which we'd get a functioning Universe...

This a not a fine-tuning argument. It's about the the need to assign final and formal causes to justify inductive reasoning.

[Ergates]

Is the modern atheist belief that only efficient causes exist consistent with the reliability of observed physical laws on which the acquisition of knowledge depends? No.

The two cornerstones of modern atheism are: 1) the physical universe is causally closed, i.e. devoid of any influence apart from the deterministic chain of cause and effect and 2) dependant on nothing outside itself its continuity or regularity. The modern atheist removes from consideration teleology, final causes and intentionality. In practice, atheism presupposes that everything we know can be described in terms of ‘material’ interactions by means of efficient causes. This excludes any type of formal or final causes that would lead one to posit divine influence. However, this cannot be the case.

An infinite series of ever smaller intermediate causes and effects separates each cause from its corresponding effect.* In order to avoid this paradox, there must be a smallest possible finite unit. You can stack small finite units (of time, space, etc.) to fill a finite gap. In quantum physics, you have a smallest possible unit of time, Plank time or tP. Yet no efficient cause links one tP to the next. They just happen to be ‘next’ to one another. Either relationship between one tP and another is random OR a transcendent order links one tP to all others.

If random, the physical universe would have no logical continuity. In such a universe, no knowledge would be justified. Since the modern atheist denies any transcendentally imposed order he must accept that the universe has no logical continuity on which the base his knowledge. Therefore, the atheist cannot also believe in the valid acquisition of knowledge without contradiction.

* (as per David Hume)

I'm new here, so forgive me if I step on a few toes. What you seem to be saying is that the universe appears to be operating on a set of principles that are not immediately obvious to you. You talk of plank time and allude to other building blocks of the universe and say that if one views the universe as the sum of all these fundamental building blocks then there is nothing that remains to link these building blocks to each other. That these building blocks appear to be related to each other must, you say, be evidence of a "transcendentally imposed order". But the appearance of this relationship between the building blocks is what gives rise to our ability to perceive the relationship. If there were any other relationship between these fundamental units then we probably wouldn't be around to ponder the issue. That we are, means only that these units are "ordered" in the way that they are. Anthropic principle. No need for any "imposed order" at all.

When you narrow your view of the universe to the point where you are talking plank times and the very smallest possible building blocks of the fabric of the universe then you're up against the uncertainty principle. In fact, you left the threshold at which the uncertainty principle becomes significant, many orders of magnitude behind you. The UP dictates that there are things that cannot be determined. You can't know everything. Despite this, the field of quantum mechanics, on which I am no expert, is extremely adept at making experimental predictions which are very precise, in spite of the randomness at the heart of things. So, you don't have to know everything. (And you can't)

So, before anyone tries to insert a "transcendental imposed order" between the essential and necessary gaps in knowledge, can I ask why you would want to do such a thing? What purpose does doing so serve? What additional explicative advantage does one acquire by doing so? None.

Take a coin toss. That's pretty random. Quantum mechanics tells us the outcome is either heads or tails. But it cannot predict which. So, I toss the coin. In my universe, I get a head or a tail. In your universe, with "transcendentally imposed order" I might get a baboon.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm new here, so forgive me if I step on a few toes.

I welcome thoughtful contributions such as yours. And welcome to AF by the way.

That we are, means only that these units are "ordered" in the way that they are. Anthropic principle. No need for any "imposed order" at all.

I agree with the first part but not the last statement. I have explicitly said that this is not a fine-tuning argument. Any claim of a "design inference" lies beyond the scope on my thesis. My thesis focuses very narrowly on a problem of epistemology. Which is this. Can an atheist apply inductive reasoning without tacitly appealing to formal and final causes?

...you left the threshold at which the uncertainty principle becomes significant, ...The UP dictates that there are things that cannot be determined. You can't know everything.

The OP is not about what we know, but rather how we know it.

...quantum mechanics...is extremely adept at making experimental predictions which are very precise, in spite of the randomness at the heart of things...Take a coin toss...In my universe, I get a head or a tail. In your universe, with "transcendentally imposed order" I might get a baboon.

In my universe the coin toss will also result in either a head or a tail, but it will not result in a baboon any more than lightening causes flowers to bloom. You can justify your belief because coin tosses result in the coins landing one way or the other. You rely on this regularity for gaining knowledge, therefore if you believe in a principle that undermines this regularity, then you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas about how knowledge is acquired.

[Esquilax]

My thesis focuses very narrowly on a problem of epistemology. Which is this. Can an atheist apply inductive reasoning without tacitly appealing to formal and final causes?

I guess my question to you in return is this: what makes you think that appealing to formal and final causes is inconsistent with atheism?

Seriously: atheism deals solely with disbelief in theistic claims, nothing more. It's an answer to a proposition about gods, not creators in general, and certainly not supernatural or extra-universal forces. One can be an atheist without denying the existence of anything, other than the specific gods laid out by the religions of the world; "Sure, there may be a creator, but so far you haven't proved that it's yours," is the only atheistic claim, so to speak. Other than that, we can, and do, believe in pretty much anything.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one must be a materialist, nor even entirely rational. It just means we don't think churches have demonstrated they have all the answers.

[paulpablo]

These are Buddhists who are atheists, humanists who are atheists but within atheism there isn't a Buddhist aspect.

Same as there is no mormon aspect to the core beliefs of christianity, they are seperate.

The first post mentions atheism, but there is no belief to atheism it is a lack of a belief in god or gods. Not once was the word god or gods mentioned in the post along side what he claims are the beliefs of atheism are, this should automatically raise alarm bells that you are reading bullshit.

Splitting hairs.

Mormonism is to theism is as Buddhism is to atheism.

Likewise Christianity is not an aspect of theism? Yeah, use a different word if you like > address the question.

Which question would that be?

---

This post is basically saying "I can prove the existence of god with inductive reasoning" There is no question. It's basically a very complicated scientific way of saying I don't understand how the universe and time works, god did it.

[fr0d0]

Which question would that be?

See the post above yours.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

My thesis focuses very narrowly on a problem of epistemology. Which is this. Can an atheist apply inductive reasoning without tacitly appealing to formal and final causes?

I guess my question to you in return is this: what makes you think that appealing to formal and final causes is inconsistent with atheism?

Seriously: atheism deals solely with disbelief in theistic claims, nothing more. It's an answer to a proposition about gods, not creators in general, and certainly not supernatural or extra-universal forces. One can be an atheist without denying the existence of anything, other than the specific gods laid out by the religions of the world; "Sure, there may be a creator, but so far you haven't proved that it's yours," is the only atheistic claim, so to speak. Other than that, we can, and do, believe in pretty much anything.

Being an atheist doesn't mean one must be a materialist, nor even entirely rational. It just means we don't think churches have demonstrated they have all the answers.

Precisely this.

I know several atheists, in RL and on other forums, that believe in a muitude of woo and hokum, even a guy who swears by the healin power of homeopathy (you'd need a special kind of faith to believe that nonsense). Chinese medicine, bizzare spiritual 'plains' and so on. I've come across atheists that believe in all of them. The only thing that's ever been ubiquitous throughout is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. Some are agnostic, whilst others will assert that there is no god, but the ubiquitous nature of atheism remains the inherent lack of belief.

[pocaracas]

---

... loaded question. Please restate it in a valid manner.

Nice dodge. As I recall the two questions were pretty straight forward. 1) Do you believe in the validity of inductive reasoning? 2) Are you an atheist?

Why do you assume there a reason to the perceived order of the Universe?

Not exactly how I would put it. I would say the universe displays types of cause, final and formal, that do not already inhere to it. These types are necessary for the physical universe to manifest order. Thus final and formal causes are the reason behind the perceived order of the universe.

The Universe is the way it is, because it is the way it is...

Once again, asserting this is a brute fact. You are avoiding the problem.

Apo has dissected the reasoning behind those physical constants and their impossibly narrow range in which we'd get a functioning Universe...

This a not a fine-tuning argument. It's about the the need to assign final and formal causes to justify inductive reasoning.

---

You're the one who said " The question remains, why do constants remain constant."
That was, to me (maybe I was wrong), a clear hint at the fine-tuning argument, while posing a why question.

Let's go for your "questions":
1) Do you believe in the validity of inductive reasoning?
Remember I was dumbucked by your wording?... yeah, I don't understand what you mean. Is that like deductive reasoning?
If it is deductive reasoning, it only as valid as the premisses.

2) Are you an atheist?
Yes, I should say so... I do hope your concept of atheist matches with mine, or we'll end up arguing like two old hags


I also don't understand your "final and formal causes for.... the Universe(?)"...

So... define all these strange terms and then we can continue