Rise in atheistic fundamentalism

[Lucio]

I want you to read the following statement and then comment, whether you agree or disagree with it and WHY.

1+1=3.

Ok, I'll bite on this one.

Whilst I do agree with the other points you make regarding belief and respecting views of others, this example doesn't help support that arguement.

The reasoning behind this is because 1+1 = 3 can be proven physically, in that you can take one object, and another identical object and prove you now have two identical objects. At best, a person who holds to the belief 1+1=3 has done is substitute the renamed the definition of 2 with a new word, that happens to have another meaning to the rest of us.

It is a case that a lot of misunderstandings come down to this issue, whereby people's definition of a word varies, such as the word "God".

[TheAnimus]

I'm not an Atheist, I'm an Agnostic. I wouldn't be surprised if there was something more than the physical existence however nor would I be surprised if there wasn't. However, there was a post on slashdot by someone called Howzer recently whose general thrust pretty much sums up what I think:

'Imagine two baskets.

One contains all the things explained by the phrase "god did it". The other contains all the things explained by "science".

A long time ago, everything was in the god basket, and nothing at all was in the science basket. The weather? God did it. Pregnancy? God did it. Disease? God did it. Where does stuff come from? God did it.

Then, as humanity learned more stuff, things got taken out of the god basket and put into the science basket. The weather. Pregnancy. Disease. Where stuff comes from, right back until a few billionths of a second before the big bang, getting closer all the time.

So what's left in the god basket? Good question -- but that's not where I'm going with this, because actually that's irrelevant.

The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.

The traffic is all one way.

So I choose the basket that contains all human knowledge. I choose the basket that keeps getting new and fantastic stuff put in it. I choose the search for truth over the abrogation of understanding.

The god basket? You believers are welcome to that. It's basically empty, getting emptier all the time. But you're welcome to keep hanging on to it. The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?'

The problem comes that its hard to find fault in the people who say that god arranged it.

We could write some rather srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy models of how dominos will fall down, simulate it exactly etc. But there is nothing to state who put them there in the first place. One could argue that god arrange the big bang, knowing all the natural routes that evelution would take. If someone has decided to accept the sceince basket is inside the god basket, and that science is mearly a way of working with gods creation, a tool god gave you so you can understand the world etc. Its hard to prove it wrong.

The problem stems from when someone tries to put something back into the god basket, because they don't understand the science. Ironically its only because they've tried, and failed, they fall back to god. If they had simply allowed science to live inside the god basket, accepting that science can never dis-prove god (not that god can be proved, just that you can't prove a negative hypothesis) all would of been happy. The science lot would happly treat these people as harmless, as their basket still contains all the goodies they feal it should, and the religous lot would simply view us as un-inlightened heathens who will rue the day of the reconing.

[yamangman]

Again fuddam, for someone who once said that the design of the human eye was impossible through the theory of evolution, you've got the typically roving goalpoasts of a theist.

that's not appropriate. As the stuck record keeps on saying, there is plenty of evidence for God, but if you don't consider it evidence (which is the principal disagreement between christians and atheists, I would venture) then never the twain shall meet. And no, am not talking about ID at the moment.

for a 'scientific' viewpoint on some issues, have a looksee here Reasons To Believe: Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Kenneth Samples, David Rogstad, Jeff Zweerink Check out their About Us section - the 8 myths. I have listened to their podcasts for some time (obvious brainwashing, n'est pas?) but not read many of their articles. Just skimmed their 8 myths, and seems interesting.

also, have a looksee here: Probe Ministries - Faith and Science

your quote is presumptious, since the world of science is NOT united on the 'evidence' (pro or anti evolution) by any means, and as with many atheists on this thread, there is an assumption that any Christian scientists have compromised their approach to science, have flawed reasoning etc.

[G4Z]

I saw this vid on youtube, thought Fuddam might find it interesting.

YouTube - Re: To All Atheist onYouTube

[JPreston]

The reasoning behind this is because 1+1 = 3 can be proven physically, in that you can take one object, and another identical object and prove you now have two identical objects.

That doesn't prove anything at all.

All you've done is relocate one object (let's say a bean) relative to yourself and a second object that is very different to the first when you look closely enough, but can also be considered to be a bean. You haven't 'added' the beans together, but for their relative locations they are completely unchanged and remain distinct and unique. You've just moved one a bit.

Conversely being a clever man, I know how to cut one sphere into five pieces and then reassemble those pieces into two separate spheres, each of which is the exact volume and density of the first. They are quite intricate pieces, for example one of them is the single point at the centre of the original sphere so I must be careful not to sneeze during the very long time this would take me, but nonetheless it is completely mathematically do-able. The principle is a bit like the puzzle about the proprietor of the hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of which are full, who neverless manages to house new guests by moving everyone from room x to room 2x for all natural numbers x. This does not of course mean that 1=2.

Seriously then, you personally can't prove that 1+1=3 is false? Then you must accept that it is a distinct possibility....right?

[Rosaline]

Erm... Lucio was attempting to define 1 + 1 = 2 via set theory, and then stated that 3 is the term used for a set containing an entity more than the set of an entity more than the empty set. As I understand it, the set theory approach is the more correct one than the 'division of a whole' method as you described (although this serves as further support in parts).

[Stewart]

I'm not an Atheist, I'm an Agnostic. I wouldn't be surprised if there was something more than the physical existence however nor would I be surprised if there wasn't. However, there was a post on slashdot by someone called Howzer recently whose general thrust pretty much sums up what I think:

'Imagine two baskets.

One contains all the things explained by the phrase "god did it". The other contains all the things explained by "science".

A long time ago, everything was in the god basket, and nothing at all was in the science basket. The weather? God did it. Pregnancy? God did it. Disease? God did it. Where does stuff come from? God did it.

Then, as humanity learned more stuff, things got taken out of the god basket and put into the science basket. The weather. Pregnancy. Disease. Where stuff comes from, right back until a few billionths of a second before the big bang, getting closer all the time.

So what's left in the god basket? Good question -- but that's not where I'm going with this, because actually that's irrelevant.

The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.

The traffic is all one way.

So I choose the basket that contains all human knowledge. I choose the basket that keeps getting new and fantastic stuff put in it. I choose the search for truth over the abrogation of understanding.

The god basket? You believers are welcome to that. It's basically empty, getting emptier all the time. But you're welcome to keep hanging on to it. The moment something is taken out of the science basket and put back into the god basket, you let me know, ok?'

The reason for that, me old mucker, is the talking snake, of Bible fame, now lives in the basket. Don't go near the basket and disturb his slumber. He'll slap the black off your ass.

[JPreston]

Erm... Lucio was attempting to define 1 + 1 = 2 via set theory, and then stated that 3 is the term used for a set containing an entity more than the set of an entity more than the empty set. As I understand it, the set theory approach is the more correct one than the 'division of a whole' method as you described (although this serves as further support in parts).

Are you his lawyer? The point is not that mankind doesn't know whether or not 1+1=3*, it's that even though Lucio personally doesn't know how to prove it either way he expects other people to agree with his belief on that issue - that's fundamentalism! Well, it isn't - obviously - but I CBA reading back to see which incorrect definition on 'fundamentalism' you settled on in the end.

*yeah so 1+1=2 really results from the definition of natural numbers (i.e. define natural numbers as the smallest set satisfying certain axioms) and not by waffling about 'sets that contain more entities than other sets' in a strange hand-waving fashion that wasn't any better than moving beans around. All you were doing was obfuscating things by ill-defining sets, then immediately taking their cardinality to get back to simple numbers again. That was a bit like Russell Grant waddling into your observatory and taking charge by trying to sound credible and authoritative about pulsars in the house of aries or something

[Rosaline]

Go back and actually read Lucio's post, rather than simply looking for something to punch. He talked about 1+1=2, however the definition of 2 may be such that it is represented by the symbol '3'. I really don't see were you are pulling statements out of the air from that people did not make. He made an attempt to prove one interpretation, but being an internet forum rather than an exam hall, he didn't go into complete depth, disproofs, or anything else.

Edit: On re-reading your original post, I found that my interpretation of your interpretation (that you said he was indeed saying 1+1=3) was wrong. You were simply disagreeing with the layman's axioms approach and presenting an alternative, arguably less well built, version. I concede all points I have made on this false presumption of mine and apologise. However, other matters remain, hence do the posts.

Lucio personally doesn't know how to prove it either way he expects other people to agree with his belief on that issue - that's fundamentalism! Well, it isn't - obviously - but *backtracks to try and avoid having just said that*

You state that the point is as initially quoted, declare that to be fundamentalism, then decide that saying that would be inconsistent with previous statements so backtrack through attacking prior posts rather than a more reasoned clarification such as "it's not the formally correct definition, however. Calling that fundamentalism is a construct of society not the dictionary". Of course, we'll ignore the fact that the language by definition is fluid and formally defined through use not through dictionaries (go talk to linguistic experts, they'll agree that if society uses a word differently, the dictionary is what changes).

The aiioms of natural numbers in plain english result in a definition approximating what I said. Forgive me for not recalling off the top of my head something I studied almost five years ago and for not having a non-technobabble guide to hand for refreshing my memory. The wisest scientists, people like sagan or feynman, all were powerful orators, able to translate the typical incomprehensible babble so often used by those in science into real English. Listen to the series of lectures from feynman hosted by the Vega society, or watch Cosmos. The babble only formally defines the english (or rather, the maths often has to be translated into written word form. This can be done through plain english, but this may leave ambiguity, hence the 'babble'. There is good babble, with easy to follow structure, and there is bad babble. The choice of the word babble here is simply for it's implications of style, not quality or merit). It is the duty of anyone who believes in the promotion of scientific (rather than magical) thinking to attempt to use and practice using plain language definitions. It is the complex forms of language that so often lead to people feeling alienated from science, and ultimately plays into the hands of the creationist and similar lobbies.

[fuddam]

I saw this vid on youtube, thought Fuddam might find it interesting.

YouTube - Re: To All Atheist onYouTube

interesting piece, but ignores one essential point: the evidence

IF he truly was a Christian, then he would have evidence (ie his relationship, 2 way) that his subsequent conversion to atheism would not be able to explain.

I would venture he was born/raised into a Christian tradition, and it was this viewpoint he used to defend. Then, once he started doubting, it was simple for him to reject his original perception, because it was built on BLIND FAITH. Just like a kid learning that there is no Santa.

As to the specific objections he raises now, he is simply talking to the wrong people. As usual. Like a lot of people on this thread (and many others) who see God as a genocidal, sadistic maniac - selective reading can be used to justify any argument.

His notion of 150 major religions, then 10,000 other religions etc is trite. He is giving each one equal validity, and if that were viable, they would all have
1) the same level of internal coherence
2) the same level of coherence with established historical fact
3) the same impact on lives of the believers
etc etc

dat ain't so.
I work a lot in the muslim world, and just to compare christianity and islam is an unfair contest. No, not because I'm a Christian, but because the *scriptures* of those religions have vastly different results when measured against the above criteria. The Quran, for one, has over 1500 revisions in the earliest known historical document. Over 1500 amendments, alterations, excisions etc, compared to the NT which has none other than the 45 recognised verses that in no way contradict the original scripture but support it (ie no conflict). And one always has to come back to the scriptures as ultimate reference (not to people).

blah blah blah. I assume I'm boring you.

[iranu]

Ok it might be a bit sneeky using maths (due to axioms) in this argument, but I think you will understand where I'm coming from.

I'll requote myself with regard to the 1+1=3 post. I knew that this was a bit tricky because I know that you need to use Peono's Postulates (axioms) Peano axioms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for natural numbers to prove it. Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math

Also realise that Russell & Whitehead proved 1+1=2 it in principia mathematica, after 400 pages of discussion! New Page 4. for the proof.

How many of you were taught that in school? Yet we all know 1+1=2 from what you might call experience, logic or common sense. So with regard to proofs it's very difficult to do even for something so simple as natural numbers yet we use these daily and infact our whole modern world is based on this premise. No one needs to do the proof in order to build bridges and buildings that don't fall down.

So how does this relate to evolution (science)? Well it's logic. Science works on logical principles. Excellent reference here

Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science

This is why a testable hypothesis is indeed the bedrock of science and understanding. If you can't test it then it's worthless. What's more if you can test then you can predict and this is what all good theories do. The science of evolution predicts and once more when we see new evidence (information) this evidence confirms the original theory because it is predicted by it. If it didn't then evolution would be in trouble. With this testable, predictable theory you can now produce applications - Technology. And for me this is the ultimate "proof" of concept.

So what's the hypothesis for ID? What does the theory predict? What sort of application(s) could be/are gotten from this science? The last question is asked of Kent Hovind in a radio phone in by a nice Irish bloke - repeat link here, YouTube - Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist and I'm not surprised he is stumped.

The problem stems from when someone tries to put something back into the god basket, because they don't understand the science. Ironically its only because they've tried, and failed, they fall back to god. If they had simply allowed science to live inside the god basket, accepting that science can never dis-prove god (not that god can be proved, just that you can't prove a negative hypothesis) all would of been happy. The science lot would happly treat these people as harmless, as their basket still contains all the goodies they feal it should, and the religous lot would simply view us as un-inlightened heathens who will rue the day of the reconing.

I really like the basket idea from Pollaxe. It's quite a simple idea that is easily discussed. Now Animus gets to the meat of this the argument and thread.

The trouble comes when the god basket is being presented as science and therefore to be taught in the classroom. As already proven above ID/creationism is not science and therefore has no scientific merit. It is not surprising then that people do not want this taught in schools alongside science because it gives the picture that it has merit and unfortunately people who see only two explanations seem to be of the false premise that both have a 50/50 chance of being right.

Remember that the FSM is a direct consequence of schooling and the Kansas City school board.

So what else has happened? Well I'd say that 9/11 has changed atheists attitudes, certainly in the USA, toward religion. Christianity in the western world is mainly benign, it's not harmful and those that practice it are indeed mostly tolerant of other beliefs and non-beliefs and we are lucky to be living in this age (of reason).

Secondly the wibbly wobbly web. It allows communication on a scale unheard of in human history. Therefore ideas, new and old, are able to be discussed without even knowing the people you are talking to along with anonymity.

From an interview with Dawkins.

Why did you write The God Delusion?

RD: I care passionately about the truth. I believe that the truth about whether there is a God in the Universe is possibly the most important truth there is. I happen to think it's false, but I think it's a really important question.
Also, because I felt that the world actually is drifting, parts of it anyway, towards theocracy in very dangerous ways. Education in my own field of Evolutionary Biology was under threat. There are all sorts of reasons why one might worry about the looming rise of religious influence, especially in the United States of America and in the Islamic world.

Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion' interviewed by Terrance McNally

I think that quote answers the OP's question quite nicely. The atheists/rationalists/humanists etc are quite concerned about the current status of the world and how it is going to affect us and I think this is the reason why so many people are now becoming vocal. Not fundamental or militant but vocal.

I need a bit of time to look at Fuddam's links because there is alot of info on the pages and I think he is right in saying it's a false assumption that Christian scientists have compromised. Ken Miller is an excellent example - YouTube - Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (A small section of this video was provided by Agent but I watched the whole thing and think it's an excellent video)

I'll stop there and let this be digested, but I'll come onto Fuddam's evidence posts in abit.

[LWA]

Again I would just like to reiterate on the fact that there are excellent, insightful and interesting points being made in this thread. Please keep up the good work!

It just shows that there are many incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable people here on Hexus. In fact, I don't feel worthy enough to even comment in this thread (this is sincere by the way, no sarcasm intended).

[pollaxe]

I think that quote answers the OP's question quite nicely. The atheists/rationalists/humanists etc are quite concerned about the current status of the world and how it is going to affect us and I think this is the reason why so many people are now becoming vocal. Not fundamental or militant but vocal.

Great post and yes, you've hit the nail on the head for me with the above. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not an Atheist and I have no anti-religious motivation or anything like that. However, I've seen the rise of religious types, their quest for political power and their consequent meddling in places like Kansas and Romania and it's bothering me. It bothers me greatly.

Like Dawkins I see a genuine threat from a bunch of people who are trying to dress up dogma and introduce it into schools as a kind of science. It isn't a science (for all the reasons rehearsed above by people more qualified to define and judge it than me) and I don't want Creationism in the classroom and being taught to my kids as some kind of objective truth. It's a knee-jerk reaction against science by people who are happy to dress up their beliefs in science's clothing in order to disguise truths that are simply inconvenient to them. For me, its only place is in the religious studies or philosophy classes. Believe in God, believe in anything you want - I have no problem with that - but keep those views where they belong.

[malfunction]

interesting piece, but ignores one essential point: the evidence

IF he truly was a Christian, then he would have evidence (ie his relationship, 2 way) that his subsequent conversion to atheism would not be able to explain.

Unfortunately I do not see how any individual testimony of an internal 2-way relationship with god can be classed as evidence at all. And to reiterate my earlier point - how is someone 'hearing' the voice of god different from someone 'hearing' voices that tell them to murder someone? You may feel it's different and you may feel it's real, but it's not something that can be accepted as evidence - it's only your belief (even if it's a belief shared by others). As has been said above, belief may be a very powerful thing but just because you believe in something, because you want something to be true, it doesn't mean that it is true. As the t-shirt goes:

WE ALL
HAVE
imaginary friends
but I don't call mine
JESUS

On a more serious note if there was a god why would he 'talk' to you anyway? Is your life that important? Are there not people with greater needs on this earth? If so why does god ignore them and talk to you instead? Because they don't believe in him? Sounds rather vain. Because they don't listen to him? If god is talking to everyone and offering good advice why would they ignore it? (And why have I never heard or felt his presence?)

[TeePee]

His notion of 150 major religions, then 10,000 other religions etc is trite. He is giving each one equal validity, and if that were viable, they would all have
1) the same level of internal coherence
2) the same level of coherence with established historical fact
3) the same impact on lives of the believers
etc etc

dat ain't so.
I work a lot in the muslim world, and just to compare christianity and islam is an unfair contest. No, not because I'm a Christian, but because the *scriptures* of those religions have vastly different results when measured against the above criteria. The Quran, for one, has over 1500 revisions in the earliest known historical document. Over 1500 amendments, alterations, excisions etc, compared to the NT which has none other than the 45 recognised verses that in no way contradict the original scripture but support it (ie no conflict). And one always has to come back to the scriptures as ultimate reference (not to people).

1)Which is where the 34,000 christian 'sects' come in.
2)Again, fiction can be set in historical times. It doesn't make the fiction true.

The bible has many contradictions, mistranslations and omissions, as previously discussed! Two of the gospels basically consist of amendments to another missing work! Many of these 150 religions have no scripture. This is really your third 'argument', which is simply that your chosen religion is best. That's no argument at all! I think a lot of believers of other religions would say that! The reality is it has no more validity than any of those other 149 religions, and that includes Scientology and the Jedi Knights (4th largest religion in Britain)!

[Lucio]

Are you his lawyer? The point is not that mankind doesn't know whether or not 1+1=3*, it's that even though Lucio personally doesn't know how to prove it either way he expects other people to agree with his belief on that issue - that's fundamentalism! Well, it isn't - obviously - but I CBA reading back to see which incorrect definition on 'fundamentalism' you settled on in the end.

*yeah so 1+1=2 really results from the definition of natural numbers (i.e. define natural numbers as the smallest set satisfying certain axioms) and not by waffling about 'sets that contain more entities than other sets' in a strange hand-waving fashion that wasn't any better than moving beans around. All you were doing was obfuscating things by ill-defining sets, then immediately taking their cardinality to get back to simple numbers again. That was a bit like Russell Grant waddling into your observatory and taking charge by trying to sound credible and authoritative about pulsars in the house of aries or something

However, whilst my mathmatics may indeed by rather simplistic, you are further exposing my arguement and bolstering it. Many things have an interpretation, the very words we use to debate topics are subject to these interpretations. Therefore we cannot actually prove anyone is wrong or right when it comes to things like beliefs.

Just as I can prove, using my definitions, that 1+1 = 2, Someone else can prove 1+1 = 3. The reason I disagreed with the concept of 1+1=3 is because to my mind, I can physically prove 1+1=2 but I cannot physically prove 1+1=3.