Is Atheism Scientific?

Massimo Pigliucci argues that atheism is philosophical, not scientific. Jerry Coyne differs : I'll call "weak sense atheism" the position that, I think, most atheists hold.

[nina]

I think atheism can be derived at by scientific methods

look at the evidence for any religion

hmmmm, looking, looking, none

therefore conclude they are cultural constructs and not believe any

so, has there been new evidence since the conclusion? no new evidence

then, premise holds that none of them are real.

[Grandpasmurf952]

Atheism is the disbelief in theology.

A theist accepts a certain set of beliefs based on unconfirmed faith.

An atheist does not.

What could be simpler?

Well, here is one approach, it isn't actually simpler but it does work:

http://grandpasmurf9520.wordpress.com/2009/06...

Accurate knowledge always trumps faith.

Dismissing the faithful as insane without proof just keeps the pot boiling :)

[nina]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

...
Accurate knowledge always trumps faith....

accurate knowledge is available

yet, faith persists

so, clearly, some other mechanism is needed for people to put aside faith for knowledge

[Grandpasmurf952]

nina said "accurate knowledge is available

yet, faith persists

so, clearly, some other mechanism is needed for people to put aside faith for knowledge "

Well, Nina, I call myself a mystical atheist.

I have found that meditation is working for me once I grasped how a hologram works. It all fell into place when I found that some scientists have already confirmed some of what I had been seeing in my contemplation of the Cosmos from my limited finite perspective.

The meditative experience is holographic in nature.
This is why it can be experienced but not communicated. Our language is designed to deal with a linear mind viewing a finite universe.

The reality of the nature of the Cosmos I found is the absolute knowledge that we all share on the deepest level of our consciousness. It is not something that can be communicated but it is something that can be alluded to with more clarity than ever in the history of humanity due to the invention of the hologram in 1947. And of course it can be experienced with some effort. Today I think we need less effort to overcome the reticence to let go of the insanity as it is becoming ever clearer! which of course makes the process much simpler.

A chain of events from the invention of the hologram resulted in David Bohm's calculations that confirmed the holographic nature of the Cosmos. Until David Bohm made this connection Scientists were at a loss to explain some of the problems with the math involved in quantum mechanics.(and, interestingly, still are by and large, due to the Patriarchal Religious Military Industrial Complex and the stranglehold that fundamentalists have on scientific research purse strings)

Here is some discussion of some of the implications of his findings:

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/d...

[Divine Alien]

It's too scientific that it avoids using God for divine explanation.

[nina]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

...
Well, Nina, I call myself a mystical atheist....

well, no one said atheists are skeptics

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Divine Alien wrote:

It's too scientific that it avoids using God for divine explanation.

Saying "God Did It" is ***exactly*** the same as:

"I Do Not Know"

Only the second phrase is more intellectually honest.

The first phrase is a mental dodge.

[Divine Alien]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Saying "God Did It" is ***exactly*** the same as:
"I Do Not Know"
Only the second phrase is more intellectually honest.
The first phrase is a mental dodge.

There are some legends to the scientific explanation that it cannot explain plainly. Yeah, scientist could make atoms from another atoms. How the atoms first existed is simply a legend. Goddidit.

[karl44]

saying:

"god did it"

is intellectual cowardice

[Dennis2]

I wouldn't say atheism is scientific per se. However, some use the fact that there is no evidence, no scientific studies, nothing, that supports religion and the supernatural, as a basis for their atheism.

It's not so much that atheism is scientific, it's that supernatural mumbo jumbo is anti-scientific in most cases.

[NotBuyingIt]

"belief' is anti science.

And 'anti-belief' is scientific.

But 'without belief' is just 'not being gullible'.

Sure,'reasoning' plays a significant role in the scientific process, that many people adapt into their everyday life and even many theists do in all other aspects of their life. But, atheism is just the result of applying reason to that 'other' aspect in ones life.

Is looking both ways before crossing a street 'scientific'?- perhaps, but is now considered 'common sense' and such a question *only* serves to cloud the issue at hand.

Science has both enforced and depleted ones beliefs - depending on what those belief were.

So 'science' and 'belief', for the most part, are not mutually exclusive nor a correlation in general terms.

Science does prove some scripture to be falsified in literal interpretations - so in that sense, it can deplete belief in that literal interpretation, but religions have shown to be resilient enough (perhaps claimed 'forced') to reinterpret their scripture and survive despite 'science'.

And until an 'afterlife' is proven (or dis-proven) beyond ALL doubt, and people ponder it - religion will always be a factor in society. I don't see that changing ever. Or at least, I won't see that change in my lifetime.

[karl44]

NotBuyingIt wrote:

"belief' is anti science.
And 'anti-belief' is scientific.
But 'without belief' is just 'not being gullible'.
Sure,'reasoning' plays a significant role in the scientific process, that many people adapt into their everyday life and even many theists do in all other aspects of their life. But, atheism is just the result of applying reason to that 'other' aspect in ones life.
Is looking both ways before crossing a street 'scientific'?- perhaps, but is now considered 'common sense' and such a question *only* serves to cloud the issue at hand.
Science has both enforced and depleted ones beliefs - depending on what those belief were.
So 'science' and 'belief', for the most part, are not mutually exclusive nor a correlation in general terms.
Science does prove some scripture to be falsified in literal interpretations - so in that sense, it can deplete belief in that literal interpretation, but religions have shown to be resilient enough (perhaps claimed 'forced') to reinterpret their scripture and survive despite 'science'.
And until an 'afterlife' is proven (or dis-proven) beyond ALL doubt, and people ponder it - religion will always be a factor in society. I don't see that changing ever. Or at least, I won't see that change in my lifetime.

as long as there is a collection plate

there will be a religion

[Grandpasmurf952]

NotBuyingIt said "And until an 'afterlife' is proven (or dis-proven) beyond ALL doubt, and people ponder it - religion will always be a factor in society. I don't see that changing ever. Or at least, I won't see that change in my lifetime. "

We are in an exciting period in our evolution where we are about to make a quantum leap in consciousness.

It started in 1947 when British/Hungarian scientist Dennis Gabor developed the theory of holography while working to improve the resolution of an electron microscope:

http://www.holophile.com/history.htm

No one made much fuss about it for awhile as the invention could not be constructed without a coherent light source. Once the laser was perfected it was just a matter of time before someone built one.

Today most people have at least seen a hologram but remember, this concept is new to the human family and still hasn't been integrated into the day to day life of the average person. At least on the conscious level.

But as scientists are discovering, the occurrence of holographic processes already occurs in the world around us. Even our brain stores memory in a holographic manner.

It wasn't til David Bohm, struggling to make sense of the quantum realm found and confirmed the mathematical construction of all that exists is a giant hologram!

David Bohm coined the word "Holomovement" to label this process that was observed. It has been rejected by most mainstream scientists who still focus on particle physics:

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/d...

It's kind of humorous, the general populace of planet earth is still struggling with a newtonian view of the universe, scientists are still struggling with the quantum view and a very small portion of us is beginning to live in the reality of our cosmic awareness of the consciousness that is the substrate of all that exists.

So, what I am trying to say NotBuyingIt, is that making sweeping statements about the nature of our spiritual nature perhaps is not conducive to personal growth.

Here is a short text file on a simple meditation that has helped me to integrate the holographic nature of what is into my life:

http://grandpasmurf9520.wordpress.com/2009/06...

[NotBuyingIt]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

We are in an exciting period in our evolution where we are about to make a quantum leap in consciousness.

If there is one pattern I noticed in predictions of the future is that *most* were not accurate to any degree, and only a small number were accurate to *some* degree.

We should have flying cars now too. And these are mechanical things - halted because of the human element. Humans are not well adapted to navigate in a 3D space - it takes a great deal of training and practice to do so effectively and *safely*.

All the stuff about holograms as it pertains to human consciousness seems moot to me - a hologram is far from 3d reality - its a 2d image designed to trick our brains that it is 3d - nothing more.

We were supposed to have hologram televisions by now too. But is halted by the human element - its too costly for what benefits the tech offers.

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

It's kind of humorous, the general populace of planet earth is still struggling with a newtonian view of the universe, scientists are still struggling with the quantum view and a very small portion of us is beginning to live in the reality of our cosmic awareness of the consciousness that is the substrate of all that exists.

Huh?'newtonian view'- erm - if you mean we can more easily relate to Newtonian physics in our everyday - its only becuase it is relevant to most people in their everyday lives - we get out of bed, takes a shower, eat a meal drive to work - all these things are explained by 'newtonian physics'.

Most people will never understand particle physics becuase it is less relevant to everyday life - its difficult to grasp *because* its not explaining all those things we all do everyday.

Perhaps when a unifying theory is made, but I know this is not happened yet. And *if* one comes - it *may* change the way we view our physical world - aka 'reality'- but until then, newton did well for himself.

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

So, what I am trying to say NotBuyingIt, is that making sweeping statements about the nature of our spiritual nature perhaps is not conducive to personal growth.

Hmmm - spending time thinking about a spirituality that seems to have no affect on me whether I accept that notion or not - seems like it is moot.

Tell me - in all your meditations - have *you* come up with the unifying theory Einstein looked for (one that works in both Newtonian and particle physics)? If so - please share it.

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

Here is a short text file on a simple meditation that has helped me to integrate the holographic nature of what is into my life:
http://grandpasmurf9520.wordpress.com/2009/06...

"Albert Einstein was quoted as saying. There are other levels of consciousness that are not generally accepted as real by most of humanity."

That has only value to those with interest in it - until you can prove it can affect a larger group of people.

The theory of electricity is only 'real' becuase they benefit from the results of it. Up till then, it was just nonsense only a few people understood and cared nothing about - even still people do not care why the light bulb lights - only care that it does or not.

[Grandpasmurf952]

NotBuyingIt said "All the stuff about holograms as it pertains to human consciousness seems moot to me - a hologram is far from 3d reality - its a 2d image designed to trick our brains that it is 3d - nothing more."

WELL, nevertheless it is what it is. You can deny it as most currently are, or you can do your own research, explore your own inner reality and come to your own conclusions. The true nature of the Cosmos is just now becoming somewhat understandable to humanity, the invention of the hologram has helped our evolution in consciousness dramatically. You can continue to experience the comfort of a familiar illusion that is bumming you out or you can make your own investigation.

I am sharing what I can to help people see that there is a bright alternative to the current spiritual confusion and insanity.

And yes, I have come up with the unifying factor that Einstein was looking for. It can be apprehended by any who wish to do the groundwork.
Since it's nature is holographic it is not something that can be described in language that has evolved to deal with the finite universe of separate objects that we are currently limited to.

Of course the lazy will just dismiss me as an idiot without any effort to verify what I have been saying. That's ok as the process of evolution does not need to be rushed!

You may be interested in knowing that currently there is some speculation among scientists that the reality of the foundation of this universe is two dimensional:

http://www.virtuescience.com/2-dimensional-un...

I picked this url at random doing a quick google search on the phrase "Two dimensional universe"

I'm sure you can find out a lot more if you are interested.

[NotBuyingIt]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

WELL, nevertheless it is what it is. You can deny it as most currently are, or you can do your own research, explore your own inner reality and come to your own conclusions.

Erm -'holograms'- I completely understand how they work - They are nothing new - ANYONE can make a hologram - and has nothing to do with the brain - the *only* location of *all* of mans consciousness.

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

The true nature of the Cosmos is just now becoming somewhat understandable to humanity, the invention of the hologram has helped our evolution in consciousness dramatically.

If the cosmos and consciousness were as simplex as a hologram - we could not survive as long as we have, much less such answers elude us for so long.

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

You can continue to experience the comfort of a familiar illusion that is bumming you out or you can make your own investigation.

Please do not treat me like I am completely ignorant.

I am sharing what I can to help people see that there is a bright alternative to the current spiritual confusion and insanity.
And yes,

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

I have come up with the unifying factor that Einstein was looking for. It can be apprehended by any who wish to do the groundwork.
Since it's nature is holographic it is not something that can be described in language that has evolved to deal with the finite universe of separate objects that we are currently limited to.

I said 'unifying theory'- a 'factor' is not good enough until its proven to be a factor - and to do that you need at least need a viable hypothesis.'its nature is holographic'- is not a hypothesis.

Holography - is nothing more than a representation of objects using light instead of matter to cause an images of objects we can perceive. Have you noticed the color problems with holograms?

There is nothing metaphysical about them - they are not some view of some other reality or consciousness.

And yes - our brain is a 3d construct - and are not laid out like a circuit board. But our brains are hardly analogous to a hologram in any way. Our brains are MUCH more complex then a hologram.

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

Of course the lazy will just dismiss me as an idiot without any effort to verify what I have been saying. That's ok as the process of evolution does not need to be rushed!

And the nuts will see more than there is.

Infer I am lazy - and I'll infer you are nutty - see how that works?

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

You may be interested in knowing that currently there is some speculation among scientists that the reality of the foundation of this universe is two dimensional:
http://www.virtuescience.com/2-dimensional-un...
I picked this url at random doing a quick google search on the phrase "Two dimensional universe"
I'm sure you can find out a lot more if you are interested.

Actually, I have little use for speculation, no matter who is speculating. Speculations are a dime a dozen. When there is some evidence I am all ears - and eyes. But until then - I could spend my days doing nothing but considering everyones speculations - and get no further ahead.

[Grandpasmurf952]

http://thegroundoffaith.orconhosting.net.nz/p... said "Erm -'holograms'- I completely understand how they work - They are nothing new - ANYONE can make a hologram - and has nothing to do with the brain - the *only* location of *all* of mans consciousness."

Here is a website discussing the findings of Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram on the holographic nature of the brain.

http://thegroundoffaith.orconhosting.net.nz/p...

I am not trying to prove you wrong, NotBuying it, I am simply encouraging people to make an effort to grasp the importance of the invention of the hologram in 1947 and it's help to us in understanding the universe.

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise in the field instead of simple nay saying?

That would actually be contributing something to the forum.

[Grandpasmurf952]

should have been:

NotBuyingIt said "Erm -'holograms'- I completely understand how they work - They are nothing new - ANYONE can make a hologram - and has nothing to do with the brain - the *only* location of *all* of mans consciousness."

Here is a website discussing the findings of Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram on the holographic nature of the brain.

http://thegroundoffaith.orconhosting.net.nz/p ...

I am not trying to prove you wrong, NotBuying it, I am simply encouraging people to make an effort to grasp the importance of the invention of the hologram in 1947 and it's help to us in understanding the universe.

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise in the field instead of simple nay saying?

That would actually be contributing something to the forum.

[Coolmind]

Atheism scientific ... is believing in ancient myths and superstitions and ghost stories "scientific"?

[NotBuyingIt]

Grandpasmurf952 wrote:

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise in the field instead of simple nay saying?

OK... for one 'holograms' as they exist since 1947 *ONLY simulates* a 3 dimensional visual by playing tricks with coherent light sources to create a VISUAL ILLUSION of 3 dimension.

Our brain while a 3 dimensional construct of *matter*, and yes, it is still under investigation, is still simply; made from much than the results of reflected coherent light.

Our brains operate by electro-chemical reactions there is no evidence that light has any significant role in its functions.

Notice a hologram is ONLY capable of simulating something our visual sense and no other senses like touch, smell, sound etc..
becuase the only thing a hologram consists of are components that reflect coherent light - and nothing more.

Our reality is MUCH more than reflected light - you can not touch and feel 'light'- the only senses that a hologram affects is our vision. And they don't do a very job of that compared to regular photographs that can more accurately reproduce colors.

In other words - holograms are little more than regular photographs, which interestingly, the amish think 'steals their souls'. That's absurd right?

Holograms offer some interesting prospects, but,
any alternatives of 'consciousness' beyond 'unconscious' and 'subconscious' needs to be proven to exist before any claims of holograms are related in any way can be made.