God & Science: A Look at Possibilities

[apeiron]

Can you clarify this atheistic top-down causality?

Do you mean option 2 or 3 - top-down causality acting alone, or the system view of two kinds of causality in equilibrium interaction?

And what in particular is unclear?

As I replied to waht, a key to it being an "atheistic" worldview would be the presumption that all meaning, all global constraint, comes from within the system. Nothing has to be supplied from without by a mysterious external source.

The top-down causality is non-mysterious because we would be able to account for it as emergent bottom-up. This puts it squarely in the realm of scientific modelling. It arises where we can see it.

Likewise, we can then follow the story back the other way to see how what exists locally in the universe has to be so because of emergence. We don't have a puzzle over who made the first atom, or caused the first QM fluctuation. Local features this concrete must be made by global processes that are visible to us as well.

Of course, there is still a degree of mystery about the origins of things, but it is at least a lesser degree of mystery than we had before. Much more appears to be within the proper scope of science and atheism - we can track its story, it is not a mystery in which we must find answers based on faith.

 

[Pattonias]

I have really enjoyed reading everyone's thought and feelings on these matters in this thread. I am sure it won't last much longer so I just wanted to say that this is probably one of the best discussion on this subject I have read in a long time.

A truly mature discussion on a easily volatile topic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Evo is right; normally threads like this get tossed into the round file. But I did poke my head in quickly today and thought this was a very productive discussion. Great job, everyone!

 

[xxChrisxx]

Why is what you quoted based on that?

They're not the only two options, but however many options you add, they boil down to just two.

I didn't know the word "believe" had only one definition.

Is there a reason you never EVER address the meat of a post? You know in your mind that I am right, so totally ignore the relevant parts of a post.

I thought this was going so well, we were having a decent discussion, and now that you've come up against a well thought out premise you simply make a one line comment that has nothing to do with the discussion to provoke someone into saying something that you can pick apart.

You don't tackle the comment rationally even when you do respond. Just like above you say "NO NO NO!" and make a flat disagreement with not even an remote attempt to respond to the content.

Your argument is also very poor.

You are aguing (basically) that if you aren't a theist you are an atheist. That's fair enough, as the two are mutually exclusive. NOONE can argue agsinst that beucase it's the very definition of the words.

However in the real world, you cannot put people into those two piles, as it doesn't accurately reflect their viewpoint. Also the meanings of agnosic and athist are different as belief and knowledge are different.

This is why your original statement of "agnostics should say athist as they are the same thing" is totally and utterly wrong.

End of the game really. You only seem to be able to come up with pathetically feeble responses designed to provoke so until you make an affort to be sensible about this, I see no reason to continue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...almost everyone.

 

[xxChrisxx]

...almost everyone.

Ivan it's bollocks, if you look at the way he reacts when confronted with a sound propsition he then makes a pedantic argument or a non relevant single line answer ignoring the point completely. This is why I never know if he's being serious and acutally believes what he's saying or is a troll.

 

[xxChrisxx]

The top-down approach implies a complete design like from blue prints, every building block, and sub-building block carefully crafted so that all the pieces work together as designed. It's like designing a skyscraper.

And science killed this was the case. The only remaining building scheme is a bottom-up approach.

You are assuming he plays by the rules (if he did exist). If we are to believe the fact he's all powerful he can do whatever he wants and can make things appear any way he wants.

That is from the action of all powerful Supreme Being, it follows there is lots of pointlessness.

Ever consider the fact that god is just a man with a very black sense of humour who's just having a laugh. The universe and all the crap in it is just his cosmological joke sitting on his mantelpiece.

I acutally quite like the idea that a god made the universe in a drunken stupor after a night out, and that's why it makes no sense.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the question in the op has been answered.