Atheism is a Religion . . . . but a good one

[Buddhist Alternative]

“I don’t know what caused the Big Bang and I don’t know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don’t know either” – Bill Maher. “I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don’t have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position” – Issac Asimov. “You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself” – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.’s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may be right.
But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: ‘Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects’. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:

“If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you’re a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time ‘A Priori’ in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

“Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing” – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles ‘pop’ into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss’s reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I’m not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing ‘eventually’ collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – ‘How The Universe Works’) that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss’s assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: ‘What caused the first Big Bang ?’. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: ‘Why is there something instead of nothing ?’

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation’. Since you can’t do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

[Fruity]

Uh... No.

[Mystical]

lol you tell em Ivy

[Captain Colostomy]

Hello, TL;DR.

However, I did skim the first little bit. Um, buddhists don't believe in a supreme being. Even the Shin sect doesn't go that far.

[max-greece]

Bit long.

You seem to have gotten to a deist position which is not one most Atheists have a problem with. Extrapolating that to a theist position is more problematic.

As it happens most of the atheists on this forum state that they do not believe in God and do not state that God definitively does not exist for the very reasons you give (we can't know).

With regard to the statement:

"My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created."

Do you have anything to back that up? Does their creation require intelligence? Personality? A God?

As to Quantum Mechanics your guess is as good as mine. Its unintelligible in general so we tend to go with the opinions of those who can express their ideas most clearly. I quite like Krauss so I go with his theory until such time as someone eliminates it as a possibility and then we all move on another step. From what I have understood he has since clarified his "nothing" hypothesis to mean no particles, no fields and no laws of physics. Seems pretty minimal to me.

Oh - and the tooth fairy doesn't visit when she thinks she is being observed - I thought everyone knew that.

[Minimalist]

Is bald a hair color?

[max-greece]

Is bald a hair color?

Sadly I am in the process of finding out.

[houseofcantor]

Some people are just so full of themselves that they vomit the excess with online egoising.

[Ben Davis]

Firstly, from the UK. You should take time to create an Intro thread on the Introductions board: let us know who you are, what you like and all that stuff. But on to your post:

Atheism is a Religion . . . . but a good one

Since you're aware of Bill Maher, you may recognise this quote "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position". Nuff said.

“If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either” – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created.

Pure speculation. We don't know enough to know whether they needed 'creating' or not. I doubt anyone could even suggest what 'created' might mean in those terms. It's possible that matter, energy, time etc. are part of some multi-universal framework that we don't have the perspective or knowledge to define; it's possible they're emergent properties of some factor of the singularity which preceded our universe's current form... There are a number of theories out there, none of which have more than a series of mathematical bases because there simply isn't enough evidence to know what was really happening.

Consciousness however is still a mystery.

Not at a high-level: consciousness is an emergent property of neurology and a word to simplify the qualia of neuroprocessing. In detail, we only now starting to discover what that means in practical terms. It's exciting times to be a neurologist!

In fact, if you’re a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter.

Nope, that's not true. Sorry. You've fallen for one of the common misunderstandings of the Copenhagen interpretation, often used by those who wish to distort the findings of quantum mechanics to support their mystical hocum. The fact that probabilities don't reconcile until observation gives the observer no control over the reconciliation. This is an experimentally demonstrated fact.

A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created.

Special pleading & conjecture based on guess-work and supposition. There is no evidence to suggest that a 'supreme consciousness' is even possible let alone actually existent.

To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness ‘somehow’ evolved; you should know that using the word ‘somehow’ poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions.

Not 'somehow': neurology increased in complexity due to evolutionary pressures.

For example, Immanuel Kant in ‘The Critique Of Pure Reason’ surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another...

For 'surmised', read 'wildly speculated'.

“Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing” – Lawrence Krauss.

By 'nothing', he means something very different to the layman's term of 'absence of everything; but go on...

I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in ‘The Spiritual Universe’ claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul.

...thanks to the hard 'work' & deliberate misuse by people like Alan Wolfe.

John Wheeler... <lots of random comments about QM and an argument from ignorance>... ‘Why is there something instead of nothing ?’

We don't know. No-one does.

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith.

Your assertion is wrong and possibly founded on a misunderstanding of what 'atheism' means. As an absence of theism, atheism has no attributes on which to have faith.

Whenever I state that I always get what I call ‘The Tooth-Fairy’ rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid’s bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy.

Yup, that's a valid test. What's your point?

What you can’t do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: ‘I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation’

Ahhh, this old chestnut. No, you're labouring under another misapprehension: there's no need to physically observe and event in order to gather enough evidence to put its likelihood of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt.

. Since you can’t do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. Special pleading does not provide an actual escape route for god, just the appearance of one.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don’t belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine.

...thanks for your permission

However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of anti-theists (the subset of atheists who not only disbelieve but actively claim that god/s don't exist) who have solely rational bases for their claims, Christopher Hitchens is a perfect example as is Neil DeGrasse Tyson; faith is not necessarily required.

If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

...or convinced of the damage that god-belief can do in the hands of the immoral/unethical.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this ‘Awareness’ down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

Cool. As long as you make no truth claims, there's no real argument here, just a difference of opinion.

[Angrboda]

One minor clarification. Anti-theist can mean active disbelief, or, active opposition to belief.