Play Trap the Atheist (The atheist delusion)

by dhw, Sunday, July 02, 2017, 14:13 (2703 days ago) @ John Kalber

Many thanks for joining us, reblak. We could be in for some interesting discussions! As David has mentioned, I am about to go on holiday, but I hope I shall still have time for one more post tomorrow.

REBLAK: ‘The Atheist Delusion’ – which I assume is a reference to Dawkins book – it is, nonetheless, well named. Unfortunately, it is the author who is deluded! To forestall endless contradictions readers may otherwise post, I will define what I understand atheism is – and is not.

David thought this was a reference to his book, but it refers to the first section of my “brief guide”, and as I have explained in the introduction, it is explicitly a response to Dawkins. As such, it is an attack on the assumptions of an atheist, but (also made explicit) it is not a defence of theism. The whole “guide” attempts to tackle assumptions by both sides, and amounts to a defence of and plea for open-mindedness, so I’d be interested to know in what way I am deluded!

REBLAK: Atheism is an ideology that accepts that what we call Nature has generated everything – bar artefacts – purely by the unassisted use of known natural resources. […] It is to be expected that atheists will challenge any ideology that encompasses or implies that any work of Nature is, in whatever measure, engaged or supervised by a God. This opposition comes also from non-atheists, so is not per se a property of atheism.

As an agnostic, I agree with all of this, except that I wouldn't call atheism an ideology. It is simply the belief that there is no such thing as a god. This need have no bearing on theories relating to the origin of the universe or of life, or indeed on any aspect of life itself, except for the demands that believers think their religion makes on them. In fact, despite the claims of theists and atheists alike, the various theories (other, of course, than those that explicitly rely on God or on chance) can usually be made to fit in with either of these –isms: the theist says “That’s how God did it”, and the atheist says “That’s how it happened, and it didn’t need a god.” The Big Bang and Evolution are prime examples.

QUOTE:
"The fact is that sooner or later, despite the atheist's faith that science will one day reveal all, we come up against the complete blockage of not knowing how it all began. The Big Bang is the current favourite, and in answer to the question what went bang, some say nothing and some say something, but nobody knows and nobody can know. That does not, of course, invalidate the Big Bang theory, so why should the same "don't know" invalidate the design theory? Brilliant. Love to see the arrogance and ignorance of atheists challenged so successfully and succinctly." (dhw's bold)

I think it’s important to note that the comment I have put in bold is yours and not mine, so thank you for the compliment! You go on to attack the Big Bang theory and its “idiotic spin-offs”, and you conclude: “as DHW suggests, I agree that the Universe is eternal and that it and its component parts have always existed. However, he thinks this does not of itself disprove the Big Bang – here we differ to some degree.” I have my own serious doubts about the Big Bang theory (and look forward very much to your reasons for debunking it), but even if it were true, it wouldn’t tell us what existed before such a beginning and, for all we know, there could have been endless big bangs in an infinite and eternal universe. And so I agree with you when, with reference to all the scientists and all the theories, you exclaim: “Sadly, neither they nor myself actually, definitively, knows.” None of us “know”.

REBLAK: I don’t think an explanation of atheism should include a discussion of any scientific subject. It is obvious that atheists are more or less self-programmed to follow a reasoning process that excludes the likelihood of a God’s involvement, but it ends there.

I don’t think atheism needs an explanation at all, once we have agreed on a definition. Our aim is to look for and discuss explanations of life itself, and to this end we consider not only scientific findings and theories but also philosophy (including religion) and personal experiences – in fact anything that might give us new insights into all the great mysteries. You will have seen, however, that there is very rarely any sort of consensus on this forum, which over the years has covered a huge range of theories and beliefs, but I myself - still sitting on my agnostic fence - have found the discussions enriching and rewarding, and I hope you will find the same!

REBLAK: I will post my opinion on these matters elsewhere on this site and posit my solutions for your constructive criticism. These will be under the title “Crazy Cosmology”.

I’ll be here tomorrow, but will then have to catch up on my return. (Details tomorrow.) David will hold the fort, but you should know that he and I hardly ever agree! Once again thank you for joining us, and I’m looking forward very much to reading your views on “crazy cosmology”.