₦airaland Forum

paulipopo:
@Huxley

I would love to reply you but please do well to quote relevant biblical verses for reference. This is in order to pick out the right context and put things in their proper perspectives.

You can start with these, baba:

1) I did not come to bring peace BUT a SWORD. (Matthew 10:34)

2) Do NOT go into the towns of the Gentiles (Matt 10: 5)

3) I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:22-28)

4) Abandon your family and follow me. (Matt 8:21, Matt 10:21. Matt 10: 34-37, Matt 19: 29, Matt 23:9
Matt 24: 19, Mark 10: 29 - 30,

5) Caused suffering to innocent animals by inflicting demons on them (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26
)

6) Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children

7) Advocated and upheld the laws of the Old Testament (Matt 5)

8-) Advocated eternity in hell

9) Advocated a life without planning for the morrow (Matt 6: 31- 34)

10) Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.

11) Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season

13) Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin.

pilgrim.1:
Atheists are not omniscient, we agree. They don't make any claim to morality etc. We grant that. But this hubris to be always harping on others' "bumbling business" and pretending not to have noticed the atheistc blooper with blood dripping in their hands (without a moral claim) smarks of tartuffery, No? I don't see how your claim to invite a discussion is consistent here. Well done.

This is not about atheism. It is about examining the claims of the bible.

paulipopo:
My God will only do such a thing to people who are convinced that evil should go unpunished. But that was the 'jewish god' anyway, the very one who had not yet revealed his secret plan for mankind i.e to unite all mankind Jews and Gentiles by making them partakers of his grace. Go over those verses you think God was cruel and ask yourself if he meted punishment to good people who never caused harm and destruction.

Due to the hardness of their hearts (jewish people) he made laws that were meant to order their steps according to his will. All the laws no matter how harsh they may have been were meant to force his people to obey and serve him since he had made a covenant with Abraham to preserve this people.

The gift of the holy spirit which would have made them love and keep his commandments without being coerced had not yet been given and that was why he sent his son.

This same God is unchangeable because there is no contradiction in his ways what seems to be contradictions are the ranting imaginations of the , you know who.

Does any of this suggest that your omniscient god knows what he is doing?   He goes about his bumbling business, not planning for the errors he has already made, only to have to rush later and rejig to rescue an already doomed mission.

By that way, who gets in the business of hardening hearts?  Is it not god?   There are many places in the bible where he hardens the hearts of people so that they would disobey him, and then he comes along and destroys them.   What sort of god is this?

The god of the Christians (aka Jesus) is supposed to have advocated or said the following:

1)  I did not come to bring peace BUT a SWORD.

2)   Do NOT go into the towns of the Gentiles

3)   I was sent to the lose sheep of the house of Israel

4)   Abandon your family and follow me.

5)  Caused suffering to innocent animals by inflicting demons on them

6)  Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children

7)  Advocated  and upheld the laws of the Old Testament

8-)  Advocated eternity in hell

9)  Advocated a life without planning for the morrow

10)  Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.

11)  Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season

13)  Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin.



How many of the above do Christians today adhere to?  If not, why do they not adhere to the injunctions of their god.  What is their basis for picking & choosing?

Great contributions guys. I am enjoying it, except for the bit where atheism is being dragged in again, kicking and screaming.

Is it really ever possible to examine the claims of the religionists for ant sense of verisimilitude without them turn the tables? This thread was meant to question the claims of the believers of the bible. If the bible contains "truth" should it not be possible to determine that fact without some other distracting accusatory charges?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

You haven't made any case here - on the one hand trying to temper the issue under an acquiescence, and then forcing the same issue, that says a lot about your intension to stay put on your misgivings.

Let me ask: is it too much for people to simply discuss issues without forcing themselves to be this driven? If you want to invite a discussion, nobody would have to lecture you or me on that. My style doesn't have to be anybody's. . . but then, we can all approach an issue sensibly and not try to insinuate what is not there.

Then for crying out loud, why even go there? Do you see the very core of the matter that we have repeatedly called out on matters like this? You know very well that you were not even looking at that subject, but it just has to be in the body of your post - to what end?

Great - I have discussed my position about that with Chrisbenogor in another thread up until it was highjacked, and I'm still discussing matters of the Law as distinct from the new covenant in the NT. If that was what you had wanted to discuss, you knew better than to lump it all and infer this matter with "killing apostates" and yet flavouring that with the "quran". Let me ask again as to what exactly does the mention of the quran have to do with the new covenant?

There's nothing incidental about that - it has no bearing whatsoever on what you claim to have wanted to discuss. . . and I realized that already before posting any reply on this thread. Please forgive my conviction that it is so - because you may have noticed that it is not every thread you have raised that has interested my input. But I just could not sit back and watch this one continue to make this huge gap and let people assume that you had no intention of discussing the killing of apostates when that is not a Christian concern.

Cheers.

Basically, I was looking for a principle under which the picking&chosing can be justified and whether every tradition from the Old Testament can be fairly assessed under such principle.

I know of the Christian concept of the New Covenant.  Now, what is the New Covenant and what OT traditions does it have jurisdiction over?   In fact, at what point did it kick in?

Was it at Jesus's birth?
Was it during is adulescences?
Was at the moment of his baptism?
Was it at the moment of crucifixion?
Was it at resurrection?
Was it as ascension?

Imagine,  you were born on the same day as Jesus and had lived up to the grand old age of 60 years.  In fact, imagine all people born with 10 - 20 years of Jesus's birth, form about 15 BCE to 10 CE.  There would have been millions of such people in the Near East at the time who were contemporaries or near coevals with Jesus.   What dispensation was open to such people?

If you were 30 years old at the time of Jesus death, does it mean that for most of your life you would have been subject to the old covenant.  But immediately following his death, the new covenant would have kicked in, and you would have had to live the rest of your life under the new covenant?  Which old covenant tradition would you have had to abandon?  

Would you have had to abandon the dietary law, the hygiene laws, the cleanliness laws,  the apostasy laws?

On the subject of picking&chosing, here is Jesus calling some other Jews to rights about tradition:

Matthew 15:


1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"
3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,'
6 he is not to 'honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

Cristalz:
In other words,you're gon' abandon the quaran part of apostate killing now and take up ''picking and choosing parts of the bible'' instead.

Try to be true to yourself huxley. You accuse people of being the opposite

Actually, contributions from Christians an Muslims would be useful. Christians as well as Muslims have parts of their holy book which their ignore, pick&chose, etc. I would like to know the basis for such selective use of their books.

Pilgrim,

You are right in one sense.  "Move away"  was not the correct word to use in this context, as I don't think Christianity ever practiced these injunction, much as Jesus would have like his followers to, if his pronouncements in the NT are to be read literally,

In fact, the main blank of this post was not even the issue of killing apostate.  The main issue is the basis for picking and chosing parts of the bible as befits one's doctrine/agenda.

huxley:
Most religions protect their status quo jealously, and particularly so the Abrahamic religions. They consider apostasy and blasphemy so vile as to be punishable by death. The bible and the quran have injunctions calling for the killing of their apostates.

Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

I used the question of apostasy as an oblique way of getting to this subject.

pilgrim.1:
Thank you, dear huxley - like I said: confusing people make me really sad for people who claim to be so rational and yet cannot distinguish issues, as long as it helps their agenda. Sir, find me where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates. At least, not every atheist plays  this cheap games - and I know a few atheists who do not go this extreme to confuse Christians for Jews or Muslims.

So, can you just please find me that verse where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates?

Did you read all the post?   Did you see the bits highlighted in red?  Here is it again.

Before I proceed, I would like to say Christianity does NOT advocate any actions based on these verses and has moved away from this form of barbarism

Did I say anywhere that the vast majority Christians are required to act on this?  C'mon, before you accuse me of anything,  read my post carefully.

The following verses from the Old Testament should give anyone reason to pause:

2 Chronicles 15

10 They assembled at Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa's reign. 11 At that time they sacrificed to the LORD seven hundred head of cattle and seven thousand sheep and goats from the plunder they had brought back. 12 They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side.

Deuteronomy 13

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Deuteronomy 17

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.


Before I proceed, I would like to say Christianity does NOT advocate any actions based on these verses and has moved away from this form of barbarism


Now, be that as it may,  what is the Christian basis to ignoring these injunctions from the Old Testament, while selecting other OT laws and customs.  It is not clear what the rationale for picking and chose parts of the bible is.  In fact, it does not seem to me that Jesus would have sanctioned the picking and chosing of scriptures on societal whimps

Most religions protect their status quo jealously, and particularly so the Abrahamic religions. They consider apostasy and blasphemy so vile as to be punishable by death. The bible and the quran have injunctions calling for the killing of their apostates.

Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

Should apostates from Islam be subject to the death penalty?

As you would imagine, I am a skeptic on most of these. A skeptic is someone who reserves judgment until all the evidence is in. As for UFO, crop circles, and a few others, I am new to the subject and hold judgment. As a naturalist, I am not "convinced" that "supernatural" forces are behind these things.

If it turns out that they are not created by humans, what ever creates then or are UFO are part of the natural realm that we have yet to understand. Basically when science explains a previously unexplanaible phenomenon, that phenomenon becomes part of the natural and know.

Incidentally, what is the evidence that has now convinced people that UFO are real? I have not kept up to speed this UFOlogy later, so inform me, if you may.

Cheers and bye. Am off to bed now.

Some interesting news about crop circles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/articles/2006/09/22/feature_inside_out_crop_circles_20060922_feature.shtml

http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/crop-circles-mystery-unraveled/offbeat-news

http://www.ufoparts.net/Crop-Circle-Research-Explanation.ashx

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0879759348/roberttoddcarrolA/

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Well, first appreciating your clarifications, it would not be in my place to hold that you were wrong - for we both stand outside Buddhism as observers and not participants, and it would be a disservice on my part to define it for its adherents.

Here are my observations:

(a) I've always wondered if atheism (in any of its expressions) have ever been inclined to supernatural and spiritual principles/interests. This was one of the things that drew my attention to query if it was wise for anyone to classify Buddhism (and Hinduism) under "Nonreligious", whereas it has not come to my notice that spiritual and supernatural principles/interests are atheistic identities.

(b) There are a few issues that Theravada Buddhism involve, from various sources, which again strengthens the point in (a) above - as far as gods are concerned. Let me refernece them:


Theravada beliefs

The Supernatural: Many faiths offer supernatural solutions to the spiritual
problems of human beings. Buddhism does not. The basis of all forms of
Buddhism is to use meditation for awakening (or enlightenment),
not outside powers.
○ Supernatural powers are not disregarded but they are incidental
and the Buddha warned against them as fetters on the path.

The Buddha: Siddhartha Gautama was a man who became Buddha,
the Awakened One - much in the same way as Jesus became Christ.
Since his death the only contact with him is through his teachings
which point to the awakened state.

God: There is no omnipotent creator God of the sort found in Judaism,
Islam and Christianity. Gods exist as various types of spiritual being
but with limited powers.

The Path to Enlightenment: Each being has to make their own way to
enlightenment without the help of God or gods. Buddha's teachings
show the way, but making the journey is up to us.

Source: BBC Religion & Ethics - Buddhism

______________________________________________


In Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, however,
veneration and worship of all Buddhas, as the transmitters and embodiments
of Dharma and its blessings, is highly significant and is seen as extremely
important for spiritual development. While Buddhism does not deny the existence
of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist
scripture, and indeed the Buddhas themselves, whose powers are of a supernatural
calibre), it does not ascribe power, in the typical Western sense, for creation,
salvation or judgment to the "gods". . .

The "God idea" forms the part of Theravada where refuge in Buddha is the supreme
and unequaled refuge which allows release from all suffering - with the "deathless
realm of Nirvana" a hint of an impersonal, transcendental Absolute.

Wikipedia - God in Buddhism

______________________________________________


The monastics of traditional Theravada, by living the ideal style and through preaching
and presiding over rituals, became the religious specialists in this system, constituting
a "field of merit" for the laity.
Traditional Theravada also accommodated popular spirit or god (deva) worship,
which addressed the mundane needs of people on the lower levels on an increasingly
"gradual" or extended path to Buddhism's ultimate goal of nibbana.

THERAVADA BUDDHISM

______________________________________________


There are several other sources along these lines or strain of thought; but the point is that, while it is not in my place to judge you wrong, we notice also that some researchers believe that Theravada Buddhism indeed involved:

-- popular spirit or god (deva) worship

-- the "God idea" forms the part of Theravada

-- Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings

-- Supernatural powers are not disregarded

-- Gods exist as various types of spiritual being
(although different in concept from the idea of God in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)


These various elements in Theravada Buddhism (as outlined above) are the reasons that made me wonder if they could be said to identify atheistic interests or principles. What do you think?

Regards.

Given that in the practice of the Theravada form of Buddhism, gods, deities and supernaturalism plays little or no part, should it be classed as a religion?

In fact, this reminds me. About 4 years ago, I used to attend a Buddhist temple in Cambrige (England) for meditation and yoga practices. I went for about 10 sessions before I had to move to Manchester. I remember having a discussion with the leader at the temple about my participation in view of the fact that I am an atheist. And he said I should not have to worry about that as most of the members there were atheist too.

My former boss at Cambridge had a close friend who was a member of said temple. I met him briefly. My boss told me that his friend was atheist.

I am joining this thread quite late, with a lot of water having gone under the bridge. But I thought, following a discussion I had with the original poster elsewhere, that I was important to give it a different edge.

I have read some of the contributions and have not been convinced that there is anything beyond hoaxes and chances. I shall start with the crop circle debate and post the following:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Levengood's Crop-Circle Plant Research
Joe Nickell taken from ---> http://www.csicop.org/sb/9606/crop_circle.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In several technical papers, W. C. Levengood purports to show that "Plants from crop formations display anatomical alterations which cannot be accounted for by assuming the formations are hoaxes."[1] Unfortunately, there are serious objections to Levengood's approach. First of all, while he uses various control plants for his experiments, nowhere in the papers I reviewed [1,2,3,4] is there any mention of the work being conducted in double-blind manner so as to minimize the effects of experimenter bias. (As one "cereologist," the Earl of Haddington, said of another laboratory that claimed to detect different "energy levels" between crop-circle and non-crop-circle areas [a concept that appears to have begun with dowsers], "When they are not told which sample came from a Crop Circle and which from a heap of grain in my back yard they are either unable or unwilling to give a result."[5])
The question of bias is important since Levengood's attitudes and assumptions reveal him as a partisan crop-circle "believer" of the Terence Meaden, ion-plasma-vortex variety. Alas, Meaden-who wrote several articles and books advocating the vortex hypothesis-was increasingly forced to conclude that great numbers of crop circles, especially the elaborate pictograms, were produced by hoaxers, and he reportedly abandoned interest in the subject. [6] Levengood's colleague, John A. Burke, seems particularly defiant towards "alleged hoaxers" [7], as if there were not powerful evidence that most-probably all-of the crop patterns were man-made.[8]

There is, in fact, no satisfactory evidence that a single "genuine" (i.e., vortex-produced) crop-circle exists, so Levengood's reasoning is circular: Although there are no guaranteed genuine formations on which to conduct research, the research supposedly proves the genuineness of the formations. But if Levengood's work were really valid, he would be expected to find that some among the putatively "genuine" formations chosen for research were actually hoaxed ones-especially since even some of Meaden's most ardent defenders admit there are more hoaxed circles than "genuine" ones. [6,8] In fact, there is now evidence that a major formation that Levengood believes genuine and uses as a basis for theoretical discussion-the "Mandelbrot" formation-was the work of hoaxers. [6]

Although Levengood finds a correlation between "structural and cellular alterations" in plants and their location within crop-circle-type formations (as opposed to those of control plants outside such formations) [1], he should know the maxim that "Correlation is not causation." As the noted Temple University mathematician John Allen Paulos recently demonstrated-quite tongue in cheek-there is a direct correlation between children's math ability and shoe size! [9] Comments statistician Rand Wilcox of the University of Southern California: "Correlation doesn't tell you anything about causation. But it's a mistake that even researchers make." [9]

That Levengood's work does not go beyond mere correlation in many instances is evident from his frequent concessions: For example, "Taken as an isolated criterion," he says, "node size data cannot be relied upon as a definite verification of a `genuine' crop formation." [1] Again he admits, "From these observed variations, it is quite evident that [cell wall] pit size alone cannot be used as a validation tool." [1]

Even his alleged correlations are suspect. Citing variations in pit expansion and node size in plants from within the formations, he states: "These energy distributions are by no means uniform."[10] Again, he cites formations where there were increases in plant pit size well outside the formations, saying that "some 20 feet out is the farthest I've seen this energy carryover and so even [though] those crops were standing upright and looked perfectly normal they had been hit." He attributes this to "several different kinds of energy" being involved. [10]

He thus gives the impression that, like Meaden, he is constantly rationalizing new data and attempting to fit it in to preconceived vortex notions. Apparently no one has yet independently replicated Levengood's work. One scientist from Colgate did attempt to verify his seed germination claims using some of his seeds but without success.[10] Apparently few mainstream scientists take Levengood's work seriously other than one or two friends who wish "to remain anonymous because of the ridicule. [10]

Until his work is independently replicated by qualified scientists doing "double-blind" studies and otherwise following stringent scientific protocols, there seems no need to take seriously the many dubious claims that Levengood makes, including his similar ones involving plants at alleged "cattle mutilation" sites.[10]

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Franklin D. Trumpy, professor of physics, Des Moines Area Community College, for critiquing this article.
References
W. C. Levengood, "Anatomical Anomalies in Crop Formation Plants," Physiologia Plantarum 92 (1994): 356-363.
W. C. Levengood, "Technique for Examining Crop Circle Energetics," Report No. 18, [Pinelandia Lab], October 12, 1993.
W. C. Levengood and John A. Burke, "Delineation of Electromagnetic Energy Influencing Crop Formations," Report No. 24, Pinelandia and Am-Tech Labs, September 28, 1994.
W. C. Levengood and John A. Burke, "Study of Simulated Crop Formations, 1994," Report No. 27, Pinelandia and Am-Tech Labs, October 10, 1994.
The Earl of Haddington, letter to The Cereoloqist (Spring 1991), quoted in The Skeptics UFO Newsletter 10 (July 1991): 7.
Joe Nickell, "Crop-Circle Mania: An Investigative Update," Skeptical Inquirer, in press.
John A. Burke, Introduction to W.C. Levengood's Report No. 18 (see ref. 2).
Joe Nickell and John F. Fischer, "The Crop-Circle Phenomenon," chapter 11 of Joe Nickell with John F. Fischer, Mysterious Realms: Probing Paranormal, Historical and Forensic Enigmas (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992), 177-210.
"Statistics Often Misused to Cite Links as Causes," Lexington Herald-Leader (Lexington, Ky.), January 5, 1995.
W. C. Levengood, telephone interview by A. J. S. Rays, December 8, 1994.
About the Author
Joe Nickell is CSICOP Senior Research Fellow.

babs787:
@Huxley
You still pretended that you still haven't arrived at the answer to the thread after what have been presented so far.

Come to think of it, is there anyway your allegations against Islam and Muslims have not been refuted in most threads?

If you think you could discuss Islam with me, providing same with facts, then set the ball rolling like you normally do in other section.

Would love to. but as you know, it will not be allowed to carry on long on this section.

are you a rationalist?

A true muslim is someone who has abdicted possession of all reasoning faculties and has become slave to an imaginary being

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

It's not clear to me what you may mean by original Buddhism. Do you care to shed some more light?

OK,  thanks a million for the invitation to which I am much oblige to comply.  Of course, you are welcome to differ if you think it is wrong or you find a better source.

The original Buddhism was instituted by the Buddha  as a form of seeking enlightenment.  This original form was called Theravada ('way of the elders') .  According to tradition, the original Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was a spiritual seeker, looking for a path to enlightenment.  Coming out of Hindu tradition, some 600 year before Christ, he tried many different disciplines and exercises.

The Buddha taught that every person had to achieve enlightenment - become a buddha or enlightened one - on his or her own.  Other people could not help.  Teachers, gurus, and previously enlightened ones who remained in the world to lead the way could not do it for you; they were not saviours but rather  instructors and doctors.  Even the gods, if there were any, could not do it for you.

The Buddha said he did  not know if there were gods or not but that it was ultimately irrelevant.  Even if there were gods, they were on their own individual salvation quest and could not give it to others. Thus the original Buddhism (Theravada) is  a system based on specific supernatural and spiritual principles but not relying on gods in any way.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Looking at the chart just above one would wonder why Martin would class Hindus and Buddhists as Atheists (or “Nonreligious”)! Have you taken a very critical look yourself before posting his assumptions in agreement thereto?

What actually are Hinduism and Buddhism? Are these a[/b]theist[b]ic worldviews?

I think you are right in questioning his classifying Buddhism and Hinduism as non-religious.  Besides, the article is deficient in not defining what religion and non-religions are.  So if there was a reason for his classification, it is not obvious from his write-up. I think and most people and researcher in the field would group these as religious movements.

As to whether they are atheistic,  I have known two people who belong to these religions who see themselves as atheists.  But besides my experience with these friends, lets examine the core belief of these religions and see if they  espouse belief and veneration of gods.

Granted, there are some forms of these religions that are theistic.  In fact, the vast majority appear to be theistic.  But the original Buddhism was not theistic and there are still elements of this traditional Buddhism today.

pilgrim.1:
Let us revisit the same source (Microsoft Encarta) on those two worldviews; and please observe the elements (some of which are emphasised) that put them outside the atheist[b]ic[/b] worldview:

On Hinduism:

[list]Hinduism, a ¹religious tradition of Indian origin,
comprising the ²beliefs and practices of Hindus. . .
>snip<
Hindus today number nearly 900 million, including about
20 million who live outside India, making them the third
largest ³religious community in the world, after Christians
and Muslims.
>snip<
Three ¹other religions that originated in India are closely
related to Hinduism: Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
In the 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
read both Hindu and Buddhist ⁴scriptures and based much of his
thinking on them.[/list]

On Buddhism:

[list]Buddhism, a ¹major world religion, founded in northeastern India
and based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who is known
as the Buddha, or Enlightened One.
>snip<
The number of Buddhists worldwide has been estimated at between
150 and 300 million.
>snip<
Closely related to this belief is the ⁵doctrine of karma.
Karma consists of a person’s acts and their ethical consequences.
Human actions lead to ⁶rebirth, wherein good deeds are inevitably
rewarded and evil deeds punished . . . According to the Buddha,
karma of varying types can lead to rebirth as a human, an animal,
a hungry ⁷ghost, a denizen of ⁸hell, or even one of
the Hindu ⁹gods.[/list]

What on earth in the name of rationalistic philosophy was Martin thinking of, that he could miss all these glaring features of both Hinduism and Buddhism and class them under A[/b]theism? Just wondering: since when did [b]a[/b]theists start believing in –

        ●  a [b]religious tradition. .

        ●  a major world religion. .

        ●  beliefs and practices

        ●  Buddhist scriptures. .

        ●  doctrine of karma. .

        ●  rebirth. .

        ●  denizen of hell. .

        ●  Hindu gods?!?

Of course, please remember - these are not my articles; rather, they were sourced from the same Microsoft Encarta where Michael Martin's article is said to have been entered. We should be wondering if the same base source is highlighting all these features which clearly have nothing to do with atheism/atheistic philosophy, someone like Martin would still class them under "Nonreligious" - was he kidding us or what?

Even when you add the number of adherents in these two worldviews together, you arrive at estimates between 1,050 million (or 1.05 billion) and 1,200 million (or 1.2 billion). Was Martin trying so hard to make a case of 1.2 billion atheists around the world? If atheism has gained such a "majority" around the world, why have atheists being crying out the minority?

These are the issues that I had wanted to highlight, and are the reasons why I kept asking over and over again earlier if one could view Buddhism as classified under "Nonreligious" when clearly the same source (Microsoft Encarta) demonstrates that they are actually major religions in the world?

You seem to be making a mistake here, but correct me if I am wrong.   Religion is not synonimous with theism.  There are many religions that are nontheistic, notably animism, ancestor worship, etc, etc.

The fact these are religions does not mean they cannot be atheistic.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Okay, let me help.

(. . to B)
In answer to your question, it is clear that Buddhism is regarded as a religion. Hence, if [b]a[/b]theism is not inclined to religion in any form, it simply throws out your attempt to classify Buddhism under [b]a[/b]theism.

Pardon me, but I do not see your logic here. Can you recast this is other words please?

pilgrim.1:
It was a question I asked so that I don't misread you. Semantics aside, I shall try and follow through to help bring you round this issue of Buddhism being classed under atheism (or as an atheistic worldview). Cheers.

Cheers. I like that - your seeking not to misrepresent. Very, very commendable.

Pardon me, but allow me to use some mathematical logic to illucidate the difference.

Supposing, A = B, and B = C. Then corresponding A = C.

Supposing, Buddhism = Atheism and Communism = Atheism, then Buddhism = Communism.

But is Buddhism the same as Communism?

pilgrim.1:
In other words, I am to henceforth assume that even atheists do not use the word "atheism"? because I really don't get you here, if atheism is the real problem here and everything else just simply has to fall under "atheistic"?

Where did I infer that ?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Thank you; but do I take it that (traditional or not) Buddhism is atheism from you?

I know why I'm asking and not trying to tediously press it on you: just so that I don't misconstrue what position you take. I would not like to run the risk of misrepresenting your ideas.

Cheers.

Some years ago, I worked with a colleague who was Buddhist.  He was originally  from India and his version of Buddhism was atheistic.

I have got a close personal friend, who was also a colleague and also from  India. His family tradition is Hinduism, but atheistic Hunduism.  These are their description of their positions.

For fear of jeopardising our relationship I never really questioned them hard about their religion, but simply took at face value what they told me.

Now, to answer your question,  I would say some forms of Buddhism is atheistic (NOT atheism).   As far as I know, nothing else is atheism.  Nothing but atheism is atheism.

For example Naturalism is atheistic, but Naturalism is NOT atheism.  Communism is atheistic, but it is NOT atheism (in fact, I am not 100% sure about this aspect of communism, as I have not personally looked into it, but relied on stuff from the grapevine)

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Noting this remark of yours earlier:

It is not a requirement to proffer any answers to simple questions - I don't force people to bend their necks that they must answer any queries (regardless how many people would like to keep harping on and on about one thing). But it would be interesting to see your answers to the simple question I offered earlier:

Cheers.

For goodness sake Buddhist are atheist yet they would be classed as harbouring unsubstantiated beliefs systems and are thus irrational in holding such beliefs.

Just as in Christianity (which has many thousands of flavours), in Buddhism there are many varieties. In my comments above, I should have used a qualifier, which I used in subsequent comment, where I meant traditional Buddhism is atheistic.

Pastor AIO:
I think the main point is not whether or not buddhist believe in god or gods, but rather whether they believe in a supernatural. In which case the answer is Yes. The buddhist believe in a supernatural world populated with beings that may or may not be called Gods. They believe that these beings are worshipped by people whether rightly or wrongly.

I think the problem with the matter of atheism is also whether or not the concept of Gods and Goddesses can be carry over across cultures. What is universal, however, is the belief in a supernatural world.

Good point and good post about the various Buddhist deities. I was not aware there were that many.

pilgrim.1:
@Pastor AIO,

Many thanks, but I think it is even more involving than that; and that was why I brought the issue here so we could discuss it in very simple outlines. Since our friends would have us believe that Buddhism is atheism, we would like to see how they arrived at this inference.

While I get you point it might help if you rephrase your comment. I was not saying Buddhism is atheism, but rather that traditional Buddhism is atheistic. The difference is important and I hope you recognise that.

There have been a number of charges against critiques of religions that they conflate theology with teleology. These charges have come from the religious themselves.

But what is Theology? And What is Teleology? And in what respects are they similar and /or different? And what does it mean to conflate theology with teleology?

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists (2003)
Sean M. Carroll

[This essay was originally presented as a talk at the "God and Physical Cosmology: Russian-Anglo American Conference on Cosmology and Theology" at Notre Dame in January/February 2003 and subsequently published in Faith and Philosophy 22(5), pp. 622-640, in 2005.]

Abstract
Science and religion both make claims about the fundamental workings of the universe. Although these claims are not a priori incompatible (we could imagine being brought to religious belief through scientific investigation), I will argue that in practice they diverge. If we believe that the methods of science can be used to discriminate between fundamental pictures of reality, we are led to a strictly materialist conception of the universe. While the details of modern cosmology are not a necessary part of this argument, they provide interesting clues as to how an ultimate picture may be constructed.

1. Introduction
2. Worldviews
3. Theory Choice
4. Cosmology and Belief
5. Conclusions


1. Introduction
One increasingly hears rumors of a reconciliation between science and religion. In major news magazines as well as at academic conferences, the claim is made that that belief in the success of science in describing the workings of the world is no longer thought to be in conflict with faith in God. I would like to argue against this trend, in favor of a more old-fashioned point of view that is still more characteristic of most scientists, who tend to disbelieve in any religious component to the workings of the universe.

The title "Why cosmologists are atheists" was chosen not because I am primarily interested in delving into the sociology and psychology of contemporary scientists, but simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning. Essentially I will be defending a position that has come down to us from the Enlightenment, and which has been sharpened along the way by various advances in scientific understanding. In particular, I will discuss what impact modern cosmology has on our understanding of these truly fundamental questions.

The past few hundred years have witnessed a significant degree of tension between science and religion. Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world--a reason why things are the way they are. In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the preexisting religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity. I will argue that this disagreement is not a priori necessary, but nevertheless does arise as a consequence of the scientific method.

It is important from the outset to distinguish between two related but ultimately distinct concepts: a picture of how the world works, and a methodology for deciding between competing pictures. The pictures of interest in this paper may be labeled "materialism" and "theism." Materialism asserts that a complete description of nature consists of an understanding of the structures of which it is comprised together with the patterns which those structures follow, while theism insists on the need for a conscious God who somehow rises above those patterns[1]. Science is most often associated with a materialist view, but the essence of science lies as much in a methodology of reaching the truth as in any view of what form that truth might ultimately take. In particular, the scientific method is an empirical one, in contrast to appeals to pure reason or to revelation. For the purposes of this paper I will assume the validity of the scientific method, and simply ask what sorts of conclusions we are led to by its application.

Within this framework, there are two possible roads to reconciliation between science and religion. One is to claim that science and religion are not incompatible because they speak to completely distinct sets of questions, and hence never come into conflict. The other is to assert that thinking scientifically does not lead to rejection of theism, but in fact that religious belief can be justified in the same way that any scientific theory might be. I will argue that neither strategy succeeds: science and religion do speak to some of the same questions, and when they do they get different answers. In particular, I wish to argue that religious belief necessarily entails certain statements about how the universe works, that these statements can be judged as scientific hypotheses, and that as such they should be rejected in favor of alternative ways of understanding the universe.

Probably nothing that I say will be anything you have not heard elsewhere. My goals here are simply to describe what I think a typical scientist has in mind when confronted with the question of science vs. religion, even if the scientists themselves have not thought through these issues in any detail.

2. Worldviews
One of the most difficult tasks in discussing the relationship between science and religion is to define the terminology in ways that are acceptable to everyone listening. In fact, it is likely impossible; especially when it comes to religion, the terminology is used in incompatible ways by different people. I will therefore try to be as clear as possible about the definitions I am using. In this section I want to carefully describe what I mean by the two competing worldviews, materialism and theism, without yet addressing how to choose between them.

The essence of materialism is to model the world as a formal system, which is both unambiguous and complete as a description of reality. A materialist model may be said to consist of four elements. First, we model the world as some formal (mathematical) structure. (General relativity describes the world as a curved manifold with a Lorentzian metric, while quantum mechanics describes the world as a state in some Hilbert space. As a more trivial example, we could imagine a universe which consisted of nothing other than an infinitely long list of "bits" taking on the values 0 or 1.) Second, this structure exhibits patterns (the "laws of nature", so that the amount of information needed to express the world is dramatically less than the structure would in principle allow. (In a world described by a string of bits, we might for example find that the bits were an infinitely repeated series of a single one followed by two zeroes: 100100100100, ) Third, we need boundary conditions which specify the specific realization of the pattern. (The first bit in our list is a one.) Note that the distinction between the patterns and their boundary conditions is not perfectly well-defined; this is an issue which becomes relevant in cosmology, and we'll discuss it more later. Finally, we need a way to relate this formal system to the world we see: an "interpretation."

The reader might worry that we are glossing over very subtle and important issues in the philosophy of science; they would be correct, but needn't worry. Philosophy of science becomes difficult when we attempt to describe the relationship of the formalism to the world (the interpretation), as well as how we invent and choose between theories. But the idea that we are trying, in principle, to model the world as a formal system is fairly uncontroversial.

The materialist thesis is simply: that's all there is to the world. Once we figure out the correct formal structure, patterns, boundary conditions, and interpretation, we have obtained a complete description of reality. (Of course we don't yet have the final answers as to what such a description is, but a materialist believes such a description does exist.) In particular, we should emphasize that there is no place in this view for common philosophical concepts such as "cause and effect" or "purpose." From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to "sustain" a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about "causality," but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one. If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time "caused" the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are--we don't need any ancillary notions.

Defining theism is more difficult than defining materialism, for the simple reason that theist belief takes many more forms that materialist belief, and the same words are often taken to mean utterly different things. I will partially avoid this difficulty by not attempting a comprehensive definition of religion, but simply taking belief in the existence of a being called "God" as a necessary component of being religious. (Already this choice excludes some modes of belief which are sometimes thought of as "religious." For example, one could claim that "the laws of physics, and their working out in the world, are what I hold to be God." I am not sure what the point of doing that would be, but in such a case nothing that I have to say would apply.)

The subtlety has therefore been transferred to the task of defining "God." I will take it to mean some being who is not bound by the same patterns we perceive in the universe, who is by our standards extremely powerful (not necessarily omnipotent, although that would count), and in some way plays a crucial role in the universe (creating it, or keeping it going, etc.). By a "being" I mean to imply an entity which we would recognize as having consciousness--a "person" in some appropriately generalized sense (as opposed to a feature of reality, or some sort of feeling). A rather concrete God, in other words, not just an aspect of nature. This notion of God need not be interventionist or easy to spot, but has at least the capability of intervening in our world. Even if not necessarily omnipotent, the relevant feature of this conception is that God is not bound by the laws of physics. In particular, I don't include some sort of superhero-God who is bound by such laws, but has figured out how to use them in ways that convey the impression of enormous power (even if it is hard to imagine ultimately distinguishing between these two possibilities). When I say that God is not bound by the laws of physics, I have in mind for example that God is not limited to moving more slowly than the speed of light, or that God could create an electron without also creating a corresponding positively charged particle. (We are not imagining that God can do the logically impossible, just violate the contingent patterns of reality that we could imagine having been different.) Of course these are meager powers compared to most conceptions of God, but I am taking them to be minimal criteria. There are various types of belief which are conventionally labeled as religious, but inconsistent with my definition of God; about these I have nothing to say in this paper.

It should be clear that, by these definitions, materialism and theism are incompatible, essentially by definition. (The former says that everything follows the rules, the second says that God is an exception.) It does not immediately follow that "science" and "religion" are incompatible; we could follow the scientific method to conclude that a materialist description of the world was not as reasonable as a theist one. On the other hand, it does follow that science and religion do overlap in their spheres of interest. Religion has many aspects, including social and moral ones, apart from its role in describing the workings of the world; however, that role is a crucial one, and necessarily speaks to some of the same issues as science does. Suggestions that science and religion are simply disjoint activities[2] generally rely on a redefinition of "religion" as something closer to "moral philosophy." Such a definition ignores crucial aspects of religious belief.

In judging between materialism and theism, we are faced with two possibilities. Either one or the other system is logically impossible, or we need to decide which of the two conceivable models better explains the world we experience. In my view, neither materialism nor theism is logically impossible, and I will proceed on the idea that we have to see which fits reality better. Of course arguments against materialism have been put forward which do not rely on specific observed features of our world, but instead on either pure reason or revelation; I won't attempt to deal with such arguments here.

3. Theory Choice
Given this understanding of materialism and theism, how are we to decide which to believe? There is no right answer to this question, and sensible arguments can only be made after we agree on some basic elements of how we should go about choosing a theory of the world. For example, someone could insist on the primacy of revelation in understanding deep truths; in response, there is no logical argument which could prove such a person wrong. Instead, I would like to ask what conclusion we should reach by employing a more empirical technique of deciding between theories. In other words, we address the choice between materialism and theism as a scientist would address the choice between any two competing theories.

The basic scientific assumption is that there is exists a complete and coherent description of how the world works. (This need not be a purely materialist description, in the language of the previous section; simply a sensible description covering all phenomena.) Although we certainly don't yet know what this description might be, science has been extremely successful at constructing provisional theories which accurately model some aspects of reality; this degree of success thus far convinces most scientists that there really is a comprehensive description to be found. This underlying assumption plays a crucial role in determining how scientists choose between competing theories which are more modest in their goals, attempting to model only some specific types of phenomena--in a nutshell, scientists choose those models which they feel are more likely to be consistent with the true underlying unified description.

We can make such a sweeping statement with some confidence, only because it avoids all the hard questions. In particular, how do we go about deciding whether a theory is more or less likely to be consistent with a single coherent description of nature? It is at this point that the judgment of the individual scientist necessarily plays a crucial role; the process is irreducibly nonalgorithmic. A number of criteria are employed, including fit to experiment, simplicity, and comprehensiveness. No one of these criteria is absolute, even fit to experiment; after all, experiments are sometimes wrong.

Let me give an example to illustrate the different criteria employed by scientists to judge theories. When we observe the dynamics of galaxies, we find that the apparent gravitational force exerted by the galaxy on particles orbiting far around it is inevitably much larger than we would expect by taking into account the combined mass of all the visible material in the galaxy. A straightforward and popular hypothesis to explain this observation is the idea of "dark matter," the notion that most of the mass in galaxies is not in stars or gas, but rather in some new kind of particle which has not yet been observed directly, and which has an average mass density in the universe which is approximately five times greater than that of ordinary matter. But there is a competing idea: that our understanding of gravity (through Einstein's general relativity) breaks down at the edges of galaxies, to be replaced by some new gravitational law. Such a law has actually been proposed by Milgrom, under the name of "Modified Newtonian Dynamics," or MOND[3]. At this point we don't know for certain whether the dark matter hypothesis or the MOND hypothesis is correct, but it is safe to say that the large majority of scientific experts come down in favor of dark matter. Why is that? On the one hand, there is a sense in which MOND is more compact and efficient: it has been demonstrated to accurately describe the observations of a wide set of galaxies, with only a single free parameter, while the dark matter idea is somewhat less predictive on this score. But there are two features working strongly in favor of dark matter. First, it makes detailed predictions for a wide class of phenomena, well outside the realm of individual galaxies: clusters of galaxies, gravitational lenses, large-scale structure, the cosmic microwave background, and more, while MOND is completely silent on these issues (there is no prediction to verify or disprove). The second (closely related) point is that MOND is not really a complete theory, or even a theory at all, but simply a suggested phenomenological relation that is supposed to hold for galaxies. Nobody understands how to make it part of a larger consistent framework. Therefore, despite the greater predictive power of MOND within its domain of validity, most scientists consider it to be a step backward, as it seems less likely to ultimately be part of a comprehensive description. (Nobody can say for sure, so the issue is still open, but the majority has a definite preference.)

It should be clear why choosing between competing theories is difficult--it's a matter of predicting the future, not of applying a set of unambiguous criteria. Nevertheless, it's not completely arbitrary, either; it's simply a matter of applying a set of somewhat ambiguous standards. Fortunately, cases in which a certain theory would be favored by applying one reasonable criterion while a different theory would be favored by applying a different reasonable criterion are both rare and typically short-lived; the acquisition of additional experimental input or increased theoretical understanding tends to ultimately resolve the issue relatively cleanly in favor of one specific model.

According to this description, the evaluation of a scientific theory involves both a judgment about the theory itself and about the more comprehensive theory which would ultimately describe nature. While a number of disparate factors are applied to concrete theories, the criteria relevant to judging competing comprehensive theories are much more straightforward: among every possible model which fits all of the data, we choose the simplest possible one. "Simplicity" here is related to the notion of "algorithmic compressibility": the simplicity of a model is judged by how much information is required to fully specify the system. There is no a priori reason why nature should be governed by a comprehensive model which is at all simple; but our experience as scientists convinces us that this is the case.

It should be clear how these considerations relate to the choice between materialism and theism. These two worldviews offer different notions of what form a comprehensive description will take. Acting as scientists, it is our task to judge whether it seems more likely that the simplest possible comprehensive theory which is compatible with what we already know about the universe will turn out to be strictly materialistic, or will require the introduction of a deity.

4. Cosmology and Belief
If we accept the scientific method as a way to determine the workings of reality, are we led to a materialist or theist conclusion? Naïvely, the deck seems to be stacked against theism: if we are looking for simplicity of description, a view which only invokes formal structures and patterns would appear to be simpler than one in which God appeared in addition. However, we are constrained to find simple descriptions which are also complete and consistent with experiment. Therefore, we could be led to belief in God, if it were warranted by our observations--if there were evidence (direct or otherwise) of divine handiwork in the universe.

There are several possible ways in which this could happen. Most direct would be straightforward observation of miraculous events that would be most easily explained by invoking God. Since such events seem hard to come by, we need to be more subtle. Yet there are still at least two ways in which a theist worldview could be judged more compelling than a materialist one. First, we could find that our best materialist conception was somehow incomplete--there was some aspect of the universe which could not possibly be explained within a completely formal framework. This would be like a "God of the gaps," if there were good reason to believe that a certain kind of "gap" were truly inexplicable by formal rules alone. Second, we could find that invoking the workings of God actually worked to simplify the description, by providing explanations for some of the observed patterns. An example would be an argument from design, if we could establish convincingly that certain aspects of the universe were designed rather than assembled by chance. Let's examine each of these possibilities in turn.

We turn first to the idea that there is something inherently missing in a materialist description of nature. One way in which this could happen would be if there were a class of phenomena which seemed to act without regard to any patterns we could discern, something that stubbornly resisted formalization into a mechanistic description. Of course, in such a case it would be hard to tell whether an appropriate formalism actually didn't exist, or whether we just hadn't yet been clever enough to discover it. For example, physicists have tried for most of the last century to invent a theory which described gravity while being consistent with quantum mechanics. (String theory is the leading candidate for such a theory, but it has not yet been fully developed to the point where we understand it well enough to compare it to experiment.) It is hard to know at what point scientists would become sufficiently frustrated in their attempts to describe a phenomenon that they would begin to suspect that no formal description was applicable. However, it is safe to say that such a point has not been reached, or even approached, with any of the phenomena of current interest to physicists. Although there are undoubtedly unsolved problems, the rate at which successful theoretical explanations are proposed for these problems is well in accordance with expectation. In other words, there does not seem to be any reason to suspect that we have reached, or are about to reach, the fundamental limits of our ability to find rules governing nature's behavior.

A more promising place to search for a fundamental incompleteness in the materialist program would be at the "boundaries" of the universe. Recall that a complete mechanistic picture involves not only patterns we discern in nature, but some boundary condition which serves to choose a particular realization of all the possible configurations consistent with such a pattern. In the realm of science, this is an issue of unique concern to cosmology. In physics, chemistry, or biology, we imagine that we can isolate systems in whatever initial state we like (within reason), and observe how the rules governing the system play themselves out from that starting point. In cosmology, in contrast, we are faced with a unique universe, and must face the issue of its initial conditions. One could certainly imagine that something like a traditional religious conception of God could provide some insight into why the initial state was the particular one relevant to our universe.

In classical cosmology initial conditions are imposed at the Big Bang, a singular region in space-time out of which our universe was born. More carefully, if we take our current universe and run it back in time, we reach a point where the density and curvature of space-time become infinite, and our equations (gravity described by Einstein's general relativity, and other fields described by the standard model of particle physics) cease to make sense. This initial moment must apparently be treated as a boundary to space-time. (A boundary in the past, not in any direction in space.) As we now recognize, the conditions near the Big Bang are by no means generic; the curvature of space (as opposed to that of space-time) was extremely close to zero, and widely separated parts of the universe were expanding at nearly identical rates. What made it this way? Do we need to accept the imposition of certain boundary conditions as an irreducible part of our worldview, or is there some way of arguing within a bigger picture that these conditions were somehow natural? Or do we simplify our description by invoking a God who brought the universe into existence in a certain state?

Nobody knows the answers with any certainty. The best we can do is to extrapolate from what we think we do know. In this context, modern cosmology does have something to teach us. In particular, we now know that the issue of boundary conditions is more complicated than it might appear at first. Indeed, we now understand that, despite appearances, the universe might not have a boundary at all. This could happen in one of two ways: either the Big Bang might actually be smooth and nonsingular, or it might represent a transitional phase in a universe which is actually eternal.

The first possibility, that the Big Bang is actually nonsingular, was popularized by the Hartle-Hawking "no boundary" proposal for the wave function of the universe[4]. Discussions of this proposal can be somewhat misleading, in that they frequently refer to the idea that the universe came into being out of nothing. This would be hard to understand, if true; what is this "nothing" that the universe purportedly came out of, and what caused it to come out? A much better way of putting the Hartle-Hawking idea into words would be to say that the apparent "sharp point" at the beginning of space-time is smoothed out into a featureless surface. The mechanism by which the smoothing purportedly happens involves technical details of the geometry of the space-time metric, and in all honesty the entire proposal is very far from being well-formulated. Nevertheless, the lesson of the Hartle-Hawking work is that we don't necessarily have to think of the Big Bang as an "edge" at which space-time runs into a wall; it could be more like the North Pole, which is as far north as you can possibly go, without actually representing any sort of physical boundary of the globe. In other words, the universe could be finite (in time) and yet be unbounded.

The other way to avoid a boundary is more intuitive: simply imagine that the universe lasts forever. Like the Hartle-Hawking proposal, the idea of an eternal universe requires going beyond our current well-formulated theories of general relativity and particle physics. In the context of classical four-dimensional gravitation, it is well known that the conditions which we believe obtained in the very early universe must have originated from a singularity. Extensions of this picture, however, can in principle allow for smooth continuation through the veil of the Big Bang to an earlier phase of the universe. Within this scenario there are two possibilities: either what we see as the Big Bang was a unique event, about which the universe expands indefinitely in either direction in time; or it was one occurrence in an infinitely repeating cycle of expansions and recontractions. Both possibilities have been considered for a long time, but have received new attention thanks to recent work by Veneziano and collaborators (the "pre-Big-Bang" model[5]) and Steinhardt, Turok, and collaborators (the "cyclic universe" model[6]).

In either case, an attempt is made to circumvent traditional singularity theorems by introducing exotic matter fields, extra dimensions of space, and sometimes "branes" on which ordinary particles are confined. For example, in the model of a cyclic universe advocated by Steinhardt and Turok, our universe is a three-brane (three spatial dimensions, evolving in time, for a total of four space-time dimensions) embedded in a background five-dimensional space-time. Motion in the extra dimension, it is suggested, can help resolve the apparent Big-Bang singularity, allowing a contracting universe to bounce and begin expanding into a new phase, before eventually recollapsing and starting the cycle over again.

I don't want to discuss details of either the pre-Big-Bang scenario or the cyclic universe; for one thing, the details are fuzzy at best and incoherent at worse. Neither picture is completely well-formulated at this time. But the state of the art in early-universe cosmology is not the point; the lesson here is that we are not forced to think of boundary conditions being imposed arbitrarily at the earliest times. In any of the scenarios mentioned here, the issue of initial conditions is dramatically altered from the classical Big-Bang scenario, since there is no edge to the universe at which boundary conditions need to be arbitrarily imposed. Thus, one cannot argue that we require the initial state of the universe to be specified by the conscious act of a deity, or that the universe came into existence as the result of a single creative act. This is by no means a proof that God does not exist; God could be responsible for the universe's existence, whether it is boundaryless or not. But these theories demonstrate that a distinct creation event is not a necessary component of a complete description of the universe. Although we don't know whether any of these models will turn out to be part of the final picture, their existence allows us to believe that a simple materialist formalism is sufficient to tell the whole story.

Being allowed to believe something, of course, is not the same as having good reasons for doing so. This brings us to the second possible way in which scientific reasoning could lead us to believe in God: if, upon constructing various models for the universe, we found that the God hypothesis accounted most economically for some of the features we found in observed phenomena. As noted, this kind of reasoning is a descendant of the well-known argument from design. A few centuries ago, for example, it would have been completely reasonable to observe the complexity and subtlety exhibited in the workings of biological creatures, and conclude that such intricacy could not possibly have arisen by chance, but must instead be attributed to the plan of a Creator. The advent of Darwin's theory of evolution, featuring descent with modification and natural selection, provided a mechanism by which such apparently improbable configurations could have arisen via innumerable gradual changes.

Indeed, modern science has provided plausible explanations for the origin of all the complex phenomena we find in nature (given appropriate initial conditions, as we just discussed). Nevertheless, these explanations rely on the details of the laws of physics, as exemplified in general relativity and the standard model of particle physics. In particular, when we consider carefully the particular laws we have discovered, we find them to be specific realizations of more general possible structures. For example, in particle physics we have various kinds of particles (fermions, gauge bosons, a hypothetical Higgs boson), as well as specific symmetries among their interactions, and particular values for the parameters governing their behavior. Given that the universe is made out of fermions and bosons with particular kinds of interactions, to the best of our current knowledge we do not understand why we find the particular particles we do, or the particular symmetries, or the particular parameters, rather than some other arrangement. Is it conceivable that in the particular realization of particles and forces of our universe we can discern the fingerprints of a conscious deity, rather than simply a random selection among an infinite number of possibilities?

Well, yes, it is certainly conceivable. In fact, the argument has been made that the particles and interactions we observe are not chosen at all randomly; instead, they are precisely tuned so as to allow for the existence of human life (or at least, complex structures of the kind we consider to be necessary for intelligent life).

In order for this argument to have force, we must believe both that the physical laws are finely tuned to allow for life (i.e., that the complexity required for life to form is not a robust feature, and would generally be absent for different choices of particles and coupling constants), and that there is no simpler alternative explanation for this fine-tuning. I will argue that neither statement is warranted by our current understanding, although both are open questions; in either case, there is not a strong reason for invoking the existence of God.

Let's turn first to the fine-tuning of our observed laws of nature. It is certainly true that the world we observe depends sensitively on the particular values of the constants of nature: for example, the strength of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. If the strong nuclear force had a slightly different value, the balance which characterizes stable nuclei would be upset, and the periodic table of the elements would be dramatically altered[7]. We could imagine (so the argument goes) values for which hydrogen were the only stable element, or for which no carbon was formed in the life cycle of stars. In either case it would be difficult or impossible for life as we know it to exist.

But there are two serious holes in this argument, at least at our current level of expertise: we don't really know what the universe would look like if the parameters of the standard model were different, nor do we know what are the necessary conditions for the formation of intelligent life. (Both of these claims are open to debate, and there are certainly scientists who disagree; but if nothing else these are the conservative positions.)

To appreciate the difficulty of reliably determining what the universe would be like if the constants of nature took on different values, let us imagine trying to figure out what our actual universe should look like, if we were handed the laws of subatomic physics but had no direct empirical knowledge of how particles assembled themselves into more complex structures. A fundamental obstacle arises immediately, since quantum chromodynamics (the theory of quarks and gluons, which gives rise to the strong nuclear force) is a strongly coupled theory, so that our most straightforward and trustworthy techniques (involving perturbation theory in some small parameter, such as the fine-structure constant of electromagnetism) are worthless. We would probably be able to conclude that quarks and gluons were bound into composite particles, and could even imagine figuring out that the lightest nearly stable examples were protons and neutrons (and their antiparticles). It would be very hard, without experimental input, to calculate reliably that protons were lighter than neutrons, but it might be possible. It would be essentially impossible to determine accurately the types of stable nuclei that protons and neutrons would be able to form. We would have no chance whatsoever of accurately predicting the actual abundance of heavy nuclei in the universe, as these are formed in stars and supernovae whose evolution we don't really understand even with considerable observational input. Most embarrassingly, we would never have predicted that there was a significant excess of matter over antimatter, since the process by which this occurs remains a complete mystery (there are numerous plausible models, but none has become commonly accepted[8]). So we would predict a world in which there were almost no nuclei at all, the nucleons and antinucleons having annihilated long ago, leaving nothing but an inert gas of photons and neutrinos. In other words, a universe utterly inhospitable to the existence of intelligent life as we know it. Of course, perhaps life could nevertheless exist, of a sort radically different than we are familiar with. As skeptical as I am about the ability of physicists to accurately predict gross features of a universe in which the laws of nature are different, I am all the more skeptical of the ability or biologists (or anyone else) to describe the conditions under which intelligence may or may not arise. (Cellular automata, the simple discrete systems popularized by Wolfram and others[9], provide an excellent example of how extreme complexity can arise out of fundamentally very simple behaviors.) For this reason, it seems highly presumptuous for anyone to claim that the laws of nature we observe are somehow delicately adjusted to allow for the existence of life.

But in fact there is a better reason to be skeptical of the fine-tuning claim: the indisputable fact that there are many features of the laws of nature which don't seem delicately adjusted at all, but seem completely irrelevant to the existence of life. In a cosmological context, the most obvious example is the sheer vastness of the universe; it would hardly seem necessary to make so many galaxies just so that life could arise on a single planet around a single star. But to me a more pointed observation is the existence of "generations" of elementary particles. All of the ordinary matter in the universe seems to be made out of two types of quarks (up and down) and two types of leptons (electrons and electron neutrinos), as well as the various force-carrying particles. But this pattern of quarks and leptons is repeated threefold: the up and down quarks are joined by four more types, just as the electron and its neutrino are joined by two electron-type particles and two more neutrinos. As far as life is concerned, these particles are completely superfluous. All of the processes we observe in the everyday workings of the universe would go on in essentially the same way if those particles didn't exist. Why do the constituents of nature exhibit this pointless duplication, if the laws of nature were constructed with life in mind?

Beyond the fact that the constants of nature do not seem to be chosen by any intelligent agent, there remains the very real possibility that parameters we think of as distinct (for example, the parameters measuring the strength of the electromagnetic and nuclear forces) are actually calculable from a single underlying parameter. This speculative proposal is the goal of so-called grand unified theories, for which there is already some indirect evidence. In other words, it might turn out to be that the constants of nature really couldn't have had any other values. I don't think that, if we discovered this to be the case, it would count as evidence against the existence of God, only because I don't think that our present understanding of these parameters counts as evidence in favor of God.

But perhaps the parameters are finely tuned; we might imagine that our understanding of physics, biology, and complexity some day will increase to a degree where we can say with confidence that alternative values for these parameters would not have allowed intelligent life to evolve. Even in that case, the existence of God is by no means the only mechanism for explaining this apparently unlikely state of affairs; a completely materialist scenario is provided by the well-known anthropic principle. Imagine that what we think of as the "constants of nature" are merely local phenomena, in the sense that there are other regions of the universe where they take on completely different values. This is a respectable possibility within our current conception of particle physics and cosmology. The idea that there are different, inaccessible regions of the universe is consistent with the theory of "eternal inflation," in which space-time on large scales consists of innumerable distinct expanding universes, connected by regions of space driven to hyperexpansion by an incredibly high-energy field[10]. Within each of these separate regions, we can imagine that the matter fields settle into one of a large number of distinct metastable states, characterized by different values of all the various coupling constants. (Such a scenario is completely consistent with current ideas from string theory[11], although it is clearly at odds with the idea from the previous paragraph that all of the coupling constants might be uniquely calculable. The truth is that either scenario is possible, we just don't know enough at this point to say with confidence which, if either, is on the right track.)

In a universe comprised of many distinct regions with different values of the coupling constants, it is tautologous that intelligent observers will only measure the values which obtain in those regions which are consistent with the existence of such observers. This is nothing more fancy than the reason why nobody is surprised that life arose on the surface of the Earth rather than the surface of the Sun, even though the surface area of the Sun is so much larger: the Earth is simply a much more hospitable environment. Therefore, even if we were to be confident that tiny alterations in the particles and couplings we observe in our universe would render life impossible, we would by no means need to invoke intelligent design as an explanation.

5. Conclusions
The question we have addressed is, "Thinking as good scientists and observing the world in which we live, is it more reasonable to conclude that a materialist or theist picture is most likely to ultimately provide a comprehensive description of the universe?" Although I don't imagine I have changed many people's minds, I do hope that my reasoning has been clear. We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality. Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description. In the various ways in which God might have been judged to be a helpful hypothesis--such as explaining the initial conditions for the universe, or the particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle physics--there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description. I am therefore led to conclude that adding God would just make things more complicated, and this hypothesis should be rejected by scientific standards. It's a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer.

Notes
[1] These categories can be found, for example, in Richard Swinburne's Is There a God? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). I don't mean to pick on the conference organizer, but this short book is a well-presented and paradigmatic example of the kind of view I want to contrast with mine.

[2] See, for example, Stephen J. Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine Publishing Group, 2002).

[3] Mordehai Milgrom, "A Modification of the Newtonian Dynamics as a Possible Alternative to the Hidden Mass Hypothesis." Astrophysical Journal 270 (July 15, 1983), pp. 365-370.

[4] James B. Hartle and Stephen W. Hawking, "Wave Function of the Universe." Physical Review D 28(12) (December 15, 1983), pp. 2960-2975.

[5] Gabriele Veneziano, "Scale Factor Duality for Classical and Quantum Strings." Physics Letters B 265(3-4) (August 15, 1991), pp. 287-294.

[6] Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok, "A Cyclic Model of the Universe." Science 296(5572) (May 24, 2002), pp. 1436-1429.

[7] Robert N. Cahn, "The Eighteen Arbitrary Parameters of the Standard Model in Your Everyday Life." Reviews of Modern Physics 68(3) (July 1996), pp. 951-959.

[8] Antonio Riotto and Mark Trodden, "Recent Progress in Baryogenesis." Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 49(1) (December 1999), pp. 35-75.

[9] Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science (Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, 2002).

[10] Alan H. Guth, "Inflation and Eternal Inflation." Physics Report 333 (2000), pp. 555-574.

[11] Michael Dine, "Seeking the Ground State of String Theory." Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 134 (1999), pp. 1-17.

ah, ya?

The question I asked was;

All religious movements have a set of core tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts. What are the core atheist tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts? Having read some atheist philosophers as Nagel et al, can you show us how these philosophers defend these tenets and how these are instrumental in governing their lives?

And there is your response:

pilgrim.1:
An atheist lives his life on the foundation of one thing: the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. What this means to them is what has led to the various schools of thought within atheism. That is why people like Nagel, G. Smith, Michael Martin, and a whole lot of others have been seeking to educate their community about atheism - and that is why you will not find just one type of atheism, but many shades and coteries within that worldview.

Besides saying that atheist lead their lives without regard to god(s), you did not say anything about core atheistic tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts. In your reading of the atheist writers, have you come across any who address core atheistic tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts? I would like to know who they are.

Do any of these authors discuss whether one should get married or not, whether one should be vegetarian or not, whether one should give to charity or not, whether one should support one political party as opposed to another, how one should spend one's leisure time, etc, etc. These are the sorts of things I expect to see addressed within tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts.

Like I said in the other thread, there are advocates of the naturalistic worldview who address such things.

pilgrim.1:
No, I did not make a typo - I was wrong. You're correct, KAG was about baryogenesis rather than abiogenesis - my mistake.

I think you made another typo. But I acknowledge your mistake.

pilgrim.1:
To be honest with you, it could not be your fault to use those choice of words - because we know that so many other "scientific" sources are making that same mistake. To seek a balance was why I had to post sources that were unbiased by the cosmetics and show that what you should (or might) have been looking at was the "evolution of the universe", and not its origin. Issues like that is what I understand as the reason why many people simply just don't want to be occupied in a shouting match - and for the same reason I have often said that we should not make ourselves the victims of needless arguments.

I think we are splitting hairs here. Whether it is the origin or the evolution, the point I am making is that at some point in the distant past, an explosive event happened, the evidence of which is still seen today. If you want to take issue, this is the point you should be dealing with.

pilgrim.1:
Good - and that was the reason I offered that opinion of "well-accepted experts in the field" without recourse to the dishonest misrepresentations of those using the Big Bang theory as a front for the "origin of the universe".

;
Who are the well-accepted experts whose opinions you offered? I did not see that. I saw a post about the BB you made, but I would have liked to see their opnions presented independently by yourself.

I mentioned the following experts in this thread

1) George Smoot, Nobel Laureate on work for CMB,
2) Alan Guth, Originator of the inflationary theory
3) Michio Kaku
4) Neil deGrasse Tyson
5) Alexei Filippenko
6) Steven Weinburg
7) Victor Stenger
8.) Stephen Hawkins
9) Roger Penrose
10) Paul Davis

In fact, I have read books by George Smoot, Victor Stenger, Paul Davis and many others. I have got about 3 textbooks of cosmology sitting at by desk right now and many folders of lecture notes from the University of Manchester, Physics Department on this subject. I am pursuing a Diploma in Cosmology, with particular reference to CMB and BB at the University, but I have had to suspend my work this year because of childbirth in the family. So my interest in this runs deep.

pilgrim.1:
Dude huxley, you amaze me. . on the one hand, you hold the idea that you don't usually hold others as ignorant - but what are you doing here? You just seem to imagine that I had no clue whatsoever about the CMD before you starting trying to use that as a battering ram in arguments? Lol, dear huxley, even when you migrate from the BB theory to CMD, do you now see what I had been trying to point out all along? The questions arising from these theoretical postulations do not yet account for the origin of the universe. If they did, what was the need of seeking answers to issues dating before that time-measure? This is what fascinates me - that we all assume we have the answers already, and yet we're asking questions that go back beyond the point where we started!

May I say this, huxley: we're all students of these theories, and not one of us can use these findings to bandy the other. Do these theories negate the reality of our spiritual experiences? No - honest people engaged in science will tell you plainly that they do not. The problem for many people is to use these issues to scream a "no-God" atheistic agenda, whereas atheism is not science. On the whole, our assumptions on both sides rest on interpretations of our world; and it would be unhealthy to use these matters to posit that theists are backward thinkers in the corridors of science.

Where did I assume you are ignorant of CMB? I was developing a line of argument, by stating facts and asking rhetorical questions. Does that mean I was assuming you to be ignorant of the facts. Take a look again. Does it say anywhere that you are ignorant?

My questions still remain:


How would you explain measure cosmic expansion rates and CMB?