Friday, April 17, 2009

Gauntlet

I've been tagged by OTD to fill out this questionnaire, so here goes:

Q1. How would you define "atheism"?

I would define it as the lack of a belief in any gods or supernatural forces (whatever that means). Sometimes people make a distinction between my definition ("weak atheism") and the positive belief that there is no god ("strong atheism"). However, there do not seem to be very many strong atheists, so in common usage we can usually use the term "atheism" as meaning "weak atheism".

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Yes. Orthodox Judaism (Lubavitch, specifically).

Q3. How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?

Pathetic

Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?

The search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy. We are pretty sure (from astronomical observations) that most of the "stuff" in the universe is not ordinary matter and energy, but we have no idea what that "stuff" is! (Actually we have a lot of ides, but we don't know if any of them are correct, yet).

Q5. If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?

I would like it to be more vocal/visible. People shouldn't have to feel the need to be in the atheist closet. If civilization survives the problems we are currently facing, it will likely be because we abandon our ancient dogmas and superstitions. People will be more willing to do this when they realize there are a lot of good people out there who have the courage to be rational.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said "I'm joining the clergy", what would be your first response?

I would tell them to do so if it makes them happy, but I would encourage them not to indoctrinate their children into their chosen faith. Then I would try to convince them that they can feel fulfilled without faith, but I'd accept their decision either way.

Q7. What's your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Most of the arguments are pretty silly. One I especially like refuting is Pascal's Wager, which basically says its smarter to believe in god because the price of false belief (nothing) is less than the price of false disbelief (hell). There are many ways to refute this, including to note that there are many possible and mutually exclusive gods to believe in, so which god should I pick?

Q8. What's your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I think I pretty much toe the party line. I think some atheists treat religion with too much undue respect, but that has been changing as of late.

Q9. Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favorite, and why?

Can I pick a fifth Horseman? If so, PZ Myers is my favorite. He's just so chutzpadik. If not, I'll pick Dawkins, his arguments are usually organized more clearly than the others, IMO.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

My hypothetical kid who wants to join the clergy. If you mean a real person, then I'll pick the Pope.

21 comments:

  1. Fred Hoyle, a secular scientist, calculated that scientifically the chances of the universe coming into existence by chance without an intelligent designer are 10 to the 10 to the 120th power.

    That number is so humongous that if you have any object you can think of, and if you multiplied it by that number you wouldn't be able to even fit it inside the entire universe.

    And since impossibility in statistics start at 10 to the -40 or +40 power, well the argument is refutable that there is a God.

    Now Judaism is a ridiculous religion. But who said you need Judaism to enjoy the value of God :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shalmo,

    I think Hoyle's argument was about abiogenesis, not the origins of the universe. In any case, his argument has been thoroughly rejected. (Also, Hoyle was THE main proponent of the discredited steady-state model of the universe, in which the idea of a creator is perhaps even more unnecessary than in the big bang model.)

    I've seen other attempts to "calculate" the probability that the universe arose, but the fact is that we don't have enough information to perform such a calculation (i.e. we don't really know much about the probability space of possible universes).

    Also, Dawkins explains quite well (in The God Delusion) that even if we were certain that the probability of the universe arising spontaneously is vanishingly small, that still does not make the idea of a creator any more plausible, because: (1) the origin of the universe only had to happen once, and apparently it did. And (2) We would still not have explained the origin of the creator (i.e. if god can exist without a creator, why can't the universe exist without a creator?)

    ReplyDelete
  3. wow! I don't wish to mock you my friend, but the temptation to begin my reply with a capitalized "LOL" is hard to resist.

    Its obvious I am dealing with an amateur in these matters, since the sources you quoted in your reply say more than enough

    "I think Hoyle's argument was about abiogenesis" does NOT count as a proper answer. Its actually false, and it shows you are making conjecture since you are unaware of what Hoyle really said.

    Quoting me a site of pseudo-science like TalkOrigins does not count as a proper refutation either. With a 2-minute google I can come up with sites that offer rebuttals against every argument on it: http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp (even though this is a creationist site, and I am an evolutionist, many of their rebuttals are valid)

    And you are wrong about Hoyle. He became a believer in intelligent design, but started from the stance of a non-believer. Another great example is Antony Flew, the world's most notorious atheist, who got convinced by intelligent design as well. In fact in his new book "There is a God" he says its now up to the atheists to prove their position.

    As for possible universes', well that's more pseudo-science. And its rather ironic this is coming from someone who demands proof over faith. What proof is there that there are multiple universes? There is none, and in fact its just more pseudo-science fabricated to squeeze away anything that hints at a creator force.

    As for Dawkins' book, God Delusion, I am curious if you have read any refutations to his work. Have you read Alistair McGrath's "The Dawkins Delusion"? You should, because he does a good job of refuting the very argument you just quoted from him.

    I would also recommend "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins

    Also Paul Davies (who himself is a non-theist) has written an excellent book: http://books.google.ca/books?id=9hxsTybfLWsC&dq=the+goldilocks+enigma&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ZdwMo_bGMI&sig=CmV1e10zCumIoMgElejoR0wz45w&hl=en&ei=5Z_qScuFOKC0NfT9pesF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

    He argues that now science has reached a point where its no longer possible to ignore the question on why the universe is just right for life, which despite all attempts by secularists to counter, strongly implies God.

    As for Dawkins, there are numerous examples all over the net of a fair bunch of LIES Dawkins' advocates in his book. Here is just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph_8_N74jYs

    Just recently Dawkins did an interview with a man called Yusuf Al Kattab, a Jewish convert to Islam, and used him as an example of muslim fundamentalism. But when we got to hear Yusuf's story, it turns out he has a copy of the whole interview and Dawkins deceivingly edited material from the interview, particularly where Yusuf said he favors only defensive resistance to Israel, and wishes that there was non-violent to stop Israel's genocide against Palestinians. If you lie enough times, then anything you say becomes unreliable.

    And there are many other similar acts of dishonesty I can list from Dawkins. Thing is muslims know that when they lie, they are going to be consequences in the afterlife, hence they have an inhibition from doing so. But an atheist who believes that he doesn't have to answer to any divine authority, and who religiously believes he is an advocate for rationality, doesn't have the same inhibitions preventing him from lieing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not really interested in converting you or changing your mind. But its really obvious that you don't believe in God, not because of the arguments, but because you are a man who just jumped ship from the worst kind of religious cult this planet can produce.

    Thing is a day will come when death will be near you, when you are old and gray. And when death is approaching are you honestly going to tell me that you aren't going to offer a prayer just in case there is someone waiting for you in the afterlife?

    Atheists in the west have been predicting the end of religion since the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. Even guys like Freud felt it was gonna end during their lifetimes, but it never did. Humans are wired to seek out the divine. This is why following periods of secularism religions always regain power among the populace. Check out the thousands of secular Jewry in Israel who are returning to their religion.

    People cannot long for something that doesn't exist. Spiritual hunger exists in all of us, which simply is yearning for God. If atheism was the answer, then we'd all would have been atheists by now, yet still the non-believers make up less than 2% of this world. Enough said!

    ReplyDelete
  5. People cannot long for something that doesn't exist.,Oh really? I long for a time machine that would take me back to my childhood (for example). I'm sure many people long for the same thing, but get over this longing because we realize it ain't happening. The difference between this non-existent time machine God is how long people have believed in it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. apikores, could you disable the word verification?

    It makes commenting difficult and i doubt there's really a need for it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. e,

    Good point. And I'll look into the thing about commenting.

    Shalmo,

    I don't have time right now to respond to all your claims, but let me just say a couple things:

    (1) Do you have source for your claim about Hoyle (not that its relevant to the correctness of your argument, I'm just curious)? And where did I say that I think there are multiple universes? (read my argument again, I made no such claim. My claim was about what we don't know.) And since you seem to be fond of arguing from authority, let me just note that an overwhelming majority of cosmologists don't buy the "fine-tuning" arguments you are talking about.

    (2) Calling me an amateur doesn't strengthen your argument. I never claimed to be an expert on anything. Furthermore, don't claim to know why I am an atheist, you don't know me well enough to determine that. Also, who is it you think I should pray to when I'm old and gray? Thor? Allah? FSM?

    ReplyDelete
  8. >Shalmo: Spiritual hunger exists in all of us, which simply is yearning for God.<
    You could use a little proof for that claim.

    >If atheism was the answer, then we'd all would have been atheists by now<
    Yeah right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah OTD, its ironic that shalmo is accusing me of making stuff up, while he says stuff like that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. e:

    "Oh really? I long for a time machine that would take me back to my childhood (for example). I'm sure many people long for the same thing, but get over this longing because we realize it ain't happening. The difference between this non-existent time machine God is how long people have believed in it."

    How many people on the globe even know what a time-machine is? Aside from a few science fiction geeks, most are unaware of it

    God on the other hand is sought by all people. All religions and metaphysical philosophies are attempts at reaching the creator and reconciling separation with him. And that is exactly what the majority of humans have been doing since time immemoral and it is a mystery no atheist has been able to resolve

    Apikores:

    "let me just note that an overwhelming majority of cosmologists don't buy the "fine-tuning" arguments you are talking about."

    tsk!

    still think I shouldn't call you an amateur?

    and even if you were right, it makes no different since you would be appealing to the fallacy of majority card.

    "Calling me an amateur doesn't strengthen your argument."

    True. I was simply letting out that it abundantly obvious you have never read any academic refutations to your position

    You have read the God Delusion, but what about those other books I just mentioned, one of which is written by a non-believer?

    "I never claimed to be an expert on anything. Furthermore, don't claim to know why I am an atheist, you don't know me well enough to determine that. "

    Your blog, and the personal history you, and all the other former frummies with their own blogs, elaborate on say more than enough for me to make that assessment.

    "Also, who is it you think I should pray to when I'm old and gray? Thor? Allah? FSM?"

    Bhagwan, Hashem, Allah, why does it matter what name you call him by? They are all the same imminent reality anyway.

    What you should have asked, is what is the "right" religion if any such thing even exists. Which frankly is a long long long discussion, and one which I cannot possibly have with you over a blog.

    Off the Derech:

    "You could use a little proof for that claim."

    That's like asking proof for why we exist.

    What is it that makes people seek the divine? To enamorate themselves in rituals and religion seeking a higher power. People have been doing it since the dawn of time.

    And we are the only ones who do it. The animals for instance don't. Their is something unique in each of us. Its what you yahood (frum ones anyway) call a neshama.

    "Yeah right."

    Well then why aren't all of us atheists?

    Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, etc have been predicting the end of religion since the Renaissance, its has never happened.

    Whenever secularism ovetakes a society, religion always makes a come-back. We see this happening in Israel with thousands of Jewry returning to Judaism. In India the largest number of atheists ever existed under the reign of King Asoka. What happened? Simple the people returned to seeking the divine. No matter how hard we humans try, we always end up returning to theology. This is why atheists remains less than 2% of humanity, and that number while always fluctuating, will never change significantly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. not everyone wants time machines, but many people fantasize about wanting to revert to the simple life they had as a child.

    The time machine business was just an example. The real point is that just because people want something, that doesn't mean that it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shalmo,

    Did you not read what I wrote? I only brought an appeal to authority because you did it first! Additionally, you originally claimed that it's scientifically irrefutable that there is a god, so in this case scientific authority may indeed carry some weight.

    You claim things which I know are not true (that I haven't read academic arguments against my position, etc.) and you are making unwarranted (and untrue) generalizations about my motivations for being an atheist, so it's becoming really hard to take you seriously, I'm sorry to say.

    (And what are you trying to prove by saying that religion isn't going away? How does that have any bearing on its correctness?)

    ReplyDelete
  13. e:

    "not everyone wants time machines, but many people fantasize about wanting to revert to the simple life they had as a child.

    The time machine business was just an example. The real point is that just because people want something, that doesn't mean that it's true."

    Read what I wrote above. I dealt with this example from you. Its a straw-man because you are comparing apples and oranges. I'll rephrase; what is it that makes human beings seek out the divine via all these religions we have today?

    Humans have not innately sought out time machines throughout all of our history lol, but we all have indeed sought out a higher power. Why is that?

    Apikores:

    "And what are you trying to prove by saying that religion isn't going away? How does that have any bearing on its correctness?"

    Oh but it does. If we could live without God, then the question remains why haven't we done so with society at large. The history I cited speaks for itself. Why is it that atheism has never excelled beyond its current miniscule number? Asoka brought the largest number of atheists ever to exist in India, why didn't it last. The Enlightment, Renaissance, and French Revolution periods all brought massive waves of atheism amongst the populace. So how did religion make such a comeback yet again? The argument here is that humans are innately drawn to the divine, which is why religion never dies down. It waters down during period of extremism, the separation from God is what brings the masses back to their churches again and again.

    "Did you not read what I wrote? I only brought an appeal to authority because you did it first! Additionally, you originally claimed that it's scientifically irrefutable that there is a god, so in this case scientific authority may indeed carry some weight."

    I gave you "scientific" arguments for my position. You are free to read those books at your leisure, as they are available for free online.

    ReplyDelete
  14. shalomo: because it helps them make sense of the world around them and makes them feel good.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "shalomo: because it helps them make sense of the world around them and makes them feel good."

    awesome! now we are getting somewhere

    now the question remains is why belief in a higher power does that, and not atheism? and before you answer bare in mind the ration of believers to non-belivers and which answer is the one sought by the vast majority of humans for most of our history on this planet

    ReplyDelete
  16. fiction is often more comforting than fact. Religion can make people--ppl all over hte world--feel good withoug being true

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shalmo,

    I agree with e. Just because humans are drawn towards religion doesn't mean that a god actually exists. Even if you are correct that humans can not live without religion (which I think you are not), that in no way implies that the claims you are making about reality (i.e. that a higher power exists) are true.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Humans seem to be hardwired to seek patterns and meaning in the world. Religion provides both.

    The universe isn't "Just right for life," life developed to deal with the universe. (Ignoring, of course, that most of the universe is extremely inhospitable to our form of life.) Its like looking at a glass of water and marveling at how perfectly the glass fits the shape of the water.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Regarding question 8, you say that "think some atheists treat religion with too much undue respect, but that has been changing as of late." Do you mean that the those atheists have been changing in that they are giving less respect or by "that" do you mean your thinking and you are changing your mind about them giving religion too much respect? It seems from other things you've written that the first makes more sense than the second but it wasn't clear to me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joshua,

    Yeah, I guess I should have been clearer. What I meant is your first interpretation. What I should have wrote is that in recent years it has become more acceptable among nonbelievers to criticize religion than it had been in the past, thanks to the efforts of people like Dawkins. As such, my opinion (that it should be okay to criticize religion) is less controversial today then it would have been in the past.

    ReplyDelete