Philosophy Now Forum

My primary filed of interest is ontology, the branch of metaphysics that studies of the nature of being and existence. It sounds like something even atheists should have an interest in, but it has been made abundantly clear to me they avoid the subject-matter like a plague ― and probably for good reason: pursuing ontology to an ultimate conclusion inexorably leads to some kind of theism.

Atheists seem to take a certain pride in their lack of belief of any kind. They claim to operate from 'working hypotheses' that are subject to change instead of beliefs, which is just a funny way of saying they don't cling to their beliefs like theists cling to their belief in God ― as though what people believe about God is not subject to change. In any other context they would be accused of bigotry, but in today's secular climate it's perfectly acceptable. Often, atheists take on an air of superiority as though confessing ignorance makes them wise in the way Socrates was wise. More silliness. What's forgotten in their self-adulation is that Socrates admitted to an internal voice that he regarded as divine or semi-divine which they vehemently deny for themselves.

Let's take the question 'what must be in order to for what is to be as it is?' for example. The question requires an ontological answer, but the closest thing to an answer atheistic 'science' has to offer is fluctuations in a quantum field whose values of mysterious origin mysteriously average in such a way as to form a universe in which self-consciousness can emerge. When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses ignorance:

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are
  
  'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.
  
  I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can
  
  I don't know, but not that (referring to God)
  
  Anything that can happen does (with God being the sole exception), so God isn't necessary.

None of there serve so much as a 'working hypothesis.' And when it is pointed out that self-consciousness is not and cannot be something apart from the self-existing quantum field even if it is ontologically distinct from it, their minds shut down. They illogically deny any connection to or attribution of consciousness to the quantum field from which it emerges ― and their denial is as adamant as any religious fanatic. As noted geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagan's last book last book, Billions & Billions:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

This is a frightening admission in anyone's book. Standing perpetually in front of us in a way so that we cannot not see them are existence, consciousness and mind ― and the above quote makes it clear that there are many who willfully close their eyes in order not to see what's in front of their face. They think only in terms of things, as though reality is comprised of isolated yet interacting bits and pieces that can be put together like parts of a puzzle and selfishly exploited without any consequences. Intelligence is made the master of existence instead of being nurtured as its faithful servant. And the earth and the earth's children plainly suffer for it.

As it happens, one of my main interests is ontology. Being fairly philosophically disciplined, I generally put it that the most likely source of all the phenomena that create the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. The point about being an atheist, like me, is not that this stuff is necessarily not 'divine' either in essence or origin, rather that any study of it should treat it as though it were not. The simple reason being that the point at which you attribute 'divinity' to something, is the point at which you surrender any hope of understanding it.

uwot wrote:As it happens, one of my main interests is ontology. Being fairly philosophically disciplined, I generally put it that the most likely source of all the phenomena that create the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of.

This correlates perfectly with what I said about the 'quantum field' phenomenon.

The point about being an atheist, like me, is not that this stuff is necessarily not 'divine' either in essence or origin, rather that any study of it should treat it as though it were not. The simple reason being that the point at which you attribute 'divinity' to something, is the point at which you surrender any hope of understanding it.

This is anti-science and irrational. It correlates perfectly with what was said about promissory materialism and Dr. Lewontin's very unscientific comment.

The Inglorious One wrote:

uwot wrote:As it happens, one of my main interests is ontology. Being fairly philosophically disciplined, I generally put it that the most likely source of all the phenomena that create the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of.

This correlates perfectly with what I said about the 'quantum field' phenomenon.

No it doesn't. Unless you mean the sociological phenomenon that is the hypothesis of a given quantum field. There is in fact no 'physical' "'quantum field' phenomenon". It is true that various 'quantum fields' are hypothesised that attempt to account for different phenomena, but the is no direct phenomenon that is 'the field'. Even if any of the hypotheses are correct, the associated 'field' will be noumenal, for those that know their Kant. It is only the "fluctuations", particles to you and me, that are detectable. There are sound reason for believing that any undisturbed field will never be detectable, but I wouldn't promise.

The Inglorious One wrote:

The point about being an atheist, like me, is not that this stuff is necessarily not 'divine' either in essence or origin, rather that any study of it should treat it as though it were not. The simple reason being that the point at which you attribute 'divinity' to something, is the point at which you surrender any hope of understanding it.

This is anti-science and irrational. It correlates perfectly with what was said about promissory materialism and Dr. Lewontin's very unscientific comment.

No, it is neither. It is nonsense to suggest that looking for an explanation other than a god is anti-science. On the contrary, it is anti-science to stop looking, because you think a god is the answer. Nor is it irrational, unless you are using 'irrational' to mean something other than irrational. Explain yourself, Inglorious.

uwot wrote: No it doesn't. Unless you mean the sociological phenomenon that is the hypothesis of a given quantum field. There is in fact no 'physical' "'quantum field' phenomenon". It is true that various 'quantum fields' are hypothesised that attempt to account for different phenomena, but the is no direct phenomenon that is 'the field'. Even if any of the hypotheses are correct, the associated 'field' will be noumenal, for those that know their Kant. It is only the "fluctuations", particles to you and me, that are detectable. There are sound reason for believing that any undisturbed field will never be detectable, but I wouldn't promise.

Of course there are other theories. As the saying goes, "you are missing the forest for the trees" by focusing on the example and ignoring its broader message: the question, 'what must be in order for what is to be as is,' demands an epistemically justified answer that science doesn't have.

No, it is neither. It is nonsense to suggest that looking for an explanation other than a god is anti-science. On the contrary, it is anti-science to stop looking, because you think a god is the answer. Nor is it irrational, unless you are using 'irrational' to mean something other than irrational. Explain yourself, Inglorious.

Are you out of your mind? Did the belief that God is the final answer prevent Galileo, Newton or Descartes from pursuing science? Positing a divine ground does not put an end to science's search for answers in any way shape or form, but casting a net designed to exclude answers you may not like most definitely is anti-science.

There are only four ways of understanding reality as such: chance, necessity, purpose, or some combination thereof. The first is has no explanatory power and is therefore epistemically unjustifiable; the others point to some kind of divine agency.

uwot wrote:As it happens, one of my main interests is ontology. Being fairly philosophically disciplined, I generally put it that the most likely source of all the phenomena that create the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. The point about being an atheist, like me, is not that this stuff is necessarily not 'divine' either in essence or origin, rather that any study of it should treat it as though it were not. The simple reason being that the point at which you attribute 'divinity' to something, is the point at which you surrender any hope of understanding it.

Well said. Although i am extremely experienced in the existence of this 'God' being...being as real as the toes on the tip of my feet, i could flip a coin fifty-fifty as to whether it is 'divine' or man\intelligent being made aeons ago. Regardless however, one such as myself must analyse the nature of reality and attempt to rationalise which side of the coin this 'being' actually is...and as you stated, admittedly the divine angle bares no hope of true comprehension (at least with todays level of knowledge)

attofishpi wrote:...admittedly the divine angle bares no hope of true comprehension (at least with todays level of knowledge)

A moot point because this is nothing more than promissory materialism that I mentioned in the OP.

Certainty isn't the goal, anyway: epistemic justification is. And, as I said, there are three things rational beings absolutely cannot ignore in their considerations.

Uwot wrote:Being fairly philosophically disciplined, I generally put it that the most likely source of all the phenomena that create the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. The point about being an atheist, like me, is not that this stuff is necessarily not 'divine' either in essence or origin, rather that any study of it should treat it as though it were not. The simple reason being that the point at which you attribute 'divinity' to something, is the point at which you surrender any hope of understanding it.

I discern an area where some sort of bridge could be built. But I think that when you say that the point where 'attributing divinity' to the fact of existence is the point where further thinking about the factual nature of things ends, is both true and false. First, to actually arrange that a rocket get built and sent to Mars and land on Mars is a project that will not require either faith nor God. It is an activity, or a vast series of activities, that depend only on man, ingenuity, factual knowledge, planning, and much else. I think the same is true for all domains of science and modern knowing. There are many advantages to the separation but there are disadvantages too.

But I would suggest, because I believe it to be true - and let us suppose that all the *stuff* of which the universe is composed is divine in essence and origin - that the field of life taken in its widest sense, and the navigation of life in the fuller senses - could very well be the domain ('magisteria' to quote a local biochemist) where relation to God is useful and potentially necessary. Though it is likely best in material science to put aside the idea of God, and yet if the *stuff* is divine in origin, would not this produce a logical discrepancy? At a certain point, at some point, the origin of the stuff and the originator will have to be considered. It follows from your own assertion.

My argument is that we as people, as Occidentals, have been constructed through a long process of growth which has entailed the philosophical/religious ideas and assumptions (speculations) of antiquity, the radical doctrines of Christianity, and a nearly constant interrelationship or polemic between two poles. I suggest that doing away as in eliminating from the realm of the considerable the possibility of understanding life through religious or spiritual predicates has notable destructive consequences. It is sort of like cutting away a whole part of the body that is not being used but which may be required or necessary again.

The Inglorious One wrote:My primary filed of interest is ontology, the branch of metaphysics that studies of the nature of being and existence. It sounds like something even atheists should have an interest in, but it has been made abundantly clear to me they avoid the subject-matter like a plague ― and probably for good reason: pursuing ontology to an ultimate conclusion inexorably leads to some kind of theism.

Atheists seem to take a certain pride in their lack of belief of any kind. They claim to operate from 'working hypotheses' that are subject to change instead of beliefs, which is just a funny way of saying they don't cling to their beliefs like theists cling to their belief in God ― as though what people believe about God is not subject to change. In any other context they would be accused of bigotry, but in today's secular climate it's perfectly acceptable. Often, atheists take on an air of superiority as though confessing ignorance makes them wise in the way Socrates was wise. More silliness. What's forgotten in their self-adulation is that Socrates admitted to an internal voice that he regarded as divine or semi-divine which they vehemently deny for themselves.

Let's take the question 'what must be in order to for what is to be as it is?' for example. The question requires an ontological answer, but the closest thing to an answer atheistic 'science' has to offer is fluctuations in a quantum field whose values of mysterious origin mysteriously average in such a way as to form a universe in which self-consciousness can emerge. When asked about the mysterious parts of their 'working hypothesis,' the atheist invariably responds in one of several ways ― all of which expresses ignorance:

• Promissory materialism ― the answer will be forthcoming when science achieves a fuller understanding of the way things are
  
  'Why' is a nonsense question ― things are as they are just because. Any supposed answer is an unjustifiable belief.
  
  I don't know, therefore, no one else does or can
  
  I don't know, but not that (referring to God)
  
  Anything that can happen does (with God being the sole exception), so God isn't necessary.

None of there serve so much as a 'working hypothesis.' And when it is pointed out that self-consciousness is not and cannot be something apart from the self-existing quantum field even if it is ontologically distinct from it, their minds shut down. They illogically deny any connection to or attribution of consciousness to the quantum field from which it emerges ― and their denial is as adamant as any religious fanatic. As noted geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in a review of Carl Sagan's last book last book, Billions & Billions:

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

This is a frightening admission in anyone's book. Standing perpetually in front of us in a way so that we cannot not see them are existence, consciousness and mind ― and the above quote makes it clear that there are many who willfully close their eyes in order not to see what's in front of their face. They think only in terms of things, as though reality is comprised of isolated yet interacting bits and pieces that can be put together like parts of a puzzle and selfishly exploited without any consequences. Intelligence is made the master of existence instead of being nurtured as its faithful servant. And the earth and the earth's children plainly suffer for it.

Childish bollocks.
There is nothing inevitable about ontology leading to any particular conclusions. Like in all threads you allow your prejudice to show.

But it is worst still than that. You start with a claim that atheists fear to treat the paths of ontology, and then you stupidly conclude with a quote with one of the world's most famous atheists Carl Sagan, on a matter of ontology.

What a 22ct twat you are.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Childish bollocks.
There is nothing inevitable about ontology leading to any particular conclusions. Like in all threads you allow your prejudice to show.

But it is worst still than that. You start with a claim that atheists fear to treat the paths of ontology, and then you stupidly conclude with a quote with one of the world's most famous atheists Carl Sagan, on a matter of ontology.

What a 22ct twat you are.

I'll leave you to your rants. I have more interesting things to do, like picking up dog shit.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Childish bollocks.
There is nothing inevitable about ontology leading to any particular conclusions. Like in all threads you allow your prejudice to show.

But it is worst still than that. You start with a claim that atheists fear to treat the paths of ontology, and then you stupidly conclude with a quote with one of the world's most famous atheists Carl Sagan, on a matter of ontology.

What a 22ct twat you are.

I'll leave you to your rants. I have more interesting things to do, like picking up dog shit.

It's all over your face you moron.

Atheists here rely almost exclusively on promissory materialism to justify excluding the divine from the natural order of things. That would be fine if there was the slightest glimmer of hope that science can eventually discover why things are the way they are, but there isn't, nor is it even equipped to do so.

How can one not notice the lack of depth that atheists here have? There is absolutely no attempt to answer the question, 'what must be in order to for what is to be as it is?' apart from the predicted response. Nor, do I imagine, will there be. But without one, the very best answer is built of a foundation of thin air. Secular 'science' may lead to tremendous advances in technology, but that has nothing to do with feeling at home in the universe; with the Divine pushed out of the picture, it has everything to do with feelings of alienation, abandonment and loneliness.

Never in the history of the world have human beings been so connected; never in the history of the world have human beings been so divided.

The Inglorious One wrote:...the question, 'what must be in order for what is to be as is,' demands an epistemically justified answer that science doesn't have.

Of course not: it's not a scientific question.

The Inglorious One wrote:Are you out of your mind? Did the belief that God is the final answer prevent Galileo, Newton or Descartes from pursuing science? Positing a divine ground does not put an end to science's search for answers in any way shape or form, but casting a net designed to exclude answers you may not like most definitely is anti-science.

This doesn't bode well, Inglorious. At this stage, we were only four posts into the thread and already you can't keep up. Post No. 2, the first response to your initial post contained this:

uwot wrote:The point about being an atheist, like me, is not that this stuff is necessarily not 'divine' either in essence or origin, rather that any study of it should treat it as though it were not. The simple reason being that the point at which you attribute 'divinity' to something, is the point at which you surrender any hope of understanding it.

That seems to me unambiguous. Which bit do you not understand?

The Inglorious One wrote:There are only four ways of understanding reality as such: chance, necessity, purpose, or some combination thereof. The first is has no explanatory power and is therefore epistemically unjustifiable; the others point to some kind of divine agency.

This doesn't raise expectations much either. The first three are mutually exclusive, therefore, there is no fourth. Necessity, which if you mean 'logical necessity' does not imply a divine agency. You have eliminated 'chance' as "epistemically unjustifiable", which leaves 'purpose'. The onus then is on you to provide a compelling argument to support the contention that the universe has a purpose.

The Inglorious One wrote:Atheists here rely almost exclusively on promissory materialism to justify excluding the divine from the natural order of things.

Who do you have in mind, and what have they said to support your assertion?

uwot wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Atheists here rely almost exclusively on promissory materialism to justify excluding the divine from the natural order of things.

Who do you have in mind, and what have they said to support your assertion?

What...you don't read your own posts?