Wilco and atheism

[caliber66]

Our understanding of the world around us evolves. We don't yet know the answer to your question, and frankly, we may never know. Science certainly doesn't have an answer today. But there were many other things that science could not explain 100s of years ago that it can now explain. Given this current dynamic and the progress that science makes, I am much more willing to accept that either (1) science will eventually get to a point where this mystery can be explained, or (2) science will never get to that point because our brains aren't sophisticated enough to understand concepts like infinity or "the beginning".

 

I am much more willing to accept my own (and our own collective) ignorance than I am willing to attribute that which I cannot understand to something that I cannot see and there is little to no evidence for.

 

Just my two cents.

I do not believe that science will ever be able to explain the origin of the universe. We can get back to the Big Bang (in theory), but where do we go from there? There can be a neverending series of discoveries on how the matter in the universe got to be in its current state, but I don't believe we will ever understand the origin of the matter in the universe. Each answer opens a new question, and I don't see a possible end to that cycle. There cannot be, unless the matter/energy/whatever was, at one time, created from nothing.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Ok. You think Christianity is false. I know. Everybody on the board knows. The "undiscovered" Amazon tribe in Brazil got the press release.

 

Explain to me how our universe blinked into being, since science says matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

[Central Scrutinizer]

This I have a problem with

[MattZ]

I do not believe that science will ever be able to explain the origin of the universe. We can get back to the Big Bang (in theory), but where do we go from there? There can be a neverending series of discoveries on how the matter in the universe got to be in its current state, but I don't believe we will ever understand the origin of the matter in the universe. Each answer opens a new question, and I don't see a possible end to that cycle. There cannot be, unless the matter/energy/whatever was, at one time, created from nothing.

 

I agree with you -- I dont think we will ever get to an answer about the origin of the universe. But I just think that is evidence of our simple brains, not of a creator. I have also spent a few summer afternoons with a beer pondering whether there even was an origin and whether "time" is a manmade concept. We know beginnings and ends because we live and die. What if time doesnt have a beginning or an ending? What if there is no origin because time and space are infinite? What if there didn't need to be a creator because there wasn't an origin?

 

I, for one, am happy to see this discussion progressing along civil lines. Doesn't happen too often around here...

[Central Scrutinizer]

Our understanding of the world around us evolves. We don't yet know the answer to your question, and frankly, we may never know. Science certainly doesn't have an answer today. But there were many other things that science could not explain 100s of years ago that it can now explain. Given this current dynamic and the progress that science makes, I am much more willing to accept that either (1) science will eventually get to a point where this mystery can be explained, or (2) science will never get to that point because our brains aren't sophisticated enough to understand concepts like infinity or "the beginning".

 

I am much more willing to accept my own (and our own collective) ignorance than I am willing to attribute that which I cannot understand to something that I cannot see and there is little to no evidence for.

 

Just my two cents.

To some, science and the knowledge we contine to attain at a staggering rate raises a spiritual response -- the amazement in the world, how it fits together, that each mystery revealed implies a great interactivty. But you still have to wonder, "where do I fit in with all of this?" Whether that's, "are you there, God?" or "should I be a lumberjack or a hair dresser?" Your thoughts are a product of where we have come and the pursuit of where we're going. Some see it strictly empirical. Others do not.

 

Those 2 cents are quite valuable. But I hope you don't simply lay the questions -- "who am I," "why am I here" -- down and stop thinking about it. I don't think it's possible.

 

I, for one, am happy to see this discussion progressing along civil lines. Doesn't happen too often around here...

[MattZ]

Those 2 cents are quite valuable. But I hope you don't simply lay the questions -- "who am I," "why am I here" -- down and stop thinking about it. I don't think it's possible.

 

Definitely not -- sometimes I think I spend too much time asking those questions.

Notwithstanding my atheism, I still consider myself to be spiritual, and I am constantly asking who I am, where/how I fit, how we are all connected, what we give, what we take.

[hazel]

 

can i use this for my avatar?

[Good Old Neon]

The bible, and I'll go on a mustard tree limb and say the koran -- is a book about a people. It's not a science book. It is more history than alchemy, more political science than rules of the road. It's how people interpret, adopt and adapt to their world -- and through religion -- that has got us to where we are today.

 

You seem to be attempting to separate the bible (the Quran, etc) from faith and religious belief

[Good Old Neon]

And yet you keep attempting to disprove one by thumping books attributed to the other.

 

 

 

Well, like caliber points out, science hasn't proven/disproven the big ones -- "who am I" "how did I get here." So you might as well be speaking in tongues.

 

 

I'm beginning to like this Hitchens guy. He sounds like Spiderman's uncle.

 

Faith, to those who apply it, gives comfort to their existence. It's a basis for interacting with people. I can't put it in a beaker, but the "greatest commandment" is a logical and irrefutable goal of a decent society.

 

Ok, but what does any of this have to do with my questions?

[mfwahl]

can i use this for my avatar?

Yeah. I didn't make it. I think it's from Rolling Stone.

[Moe_Syzlak]

These sort of generalities get both sides of the argument in trouble. What you say about "a person of faith" is absolute bullshit. The search for -- or against -- fath is a lifelong journey. Someone who ceases to question the existence is just as mentally and spiritually bankrupt as one who is absolute certain of its absense.

 

You would probably be amazed at the number of scientists that are Christias, Jews, Muslim etc.

 

On the other hand there are a great number of atheists -- or agnostics (despite the nature of the term) who find it impossible to give the honest answer, "I don't know."

Do you intentionally misrepresent my posts just pick a fight with me? Seriously? My post was, in essence, in total agreement with what you are saying. The characterization of my "person of faith" was meant to portray those that are on the extreme (and yes, they DO exist) to point out that you can find those that are so certain of their position that they cease to have an open mind on both sides of the belief spectrum. Please re-read my post (emphasis added):

 

You could say the exact opposite, as well. Atheists (or more accurately, agnostics -- same thing in my mind, but we won't go there again) are not attributing the world's mysteries to some unknown being. An atheist might be more inclined to build powerful telescopes to peer into the origins of the universe, whereas a person of faith might be less inclined because well, they "know" the answer: God did it. The truth is that is a specious argument and objectivity can and does exist among those of faith and those without it.

 

Do you really think I am attacking all believers? No, I am merely pointing out that a lack of belief in god does not equal a lack of objectivity as the previous poster intimated.

[Good Old Neon]

Well, like caliber points out, science hasn't proven/disproven the big ones -- "who am I" "how did I get here." So you might as well be speaking in tongues.

 

Those sorts of questions are only important insofar as you are human and able to ponder them

[Central Scrutinizer]

You seem to be attempting to separate the bible (the Quran, etc) from faith and religious belief

[Central Scrutinizer]

Do you intentionally misrepresent my posts just pick a fight with me? Seriously? My post was, in essence, in total agreement with what you are saying. The characterization of my "person of faith" was meant to portray those that are on the extreme (and yes, they DO exist) to point out that you can find those that are so certain of their position that they cease to have an open mind on both sides of the belief spectrum. Please re-read my post (emphasis added):

 

 

 

Do you really think I am attacking all believers? No, I am merely pointing out that a lack of belief in god does not equal a lack of objectivity as the previous poster intimated.

That is the extreme. Agreed. Read out of context.

[caliber66]

Those sorts of questions are only important insofar as you are human and able to ponder them

[MattZ]

The fact that there is not an answer for the origin of all the matter and energy in the universe does not have anything to do with the fact that I am able to ask myself that question.

 

It doesn't. Except that you seem to be suggesting (unless I misunderstood you) that the fact that there is no answer for our origin suggests that someone/something had to create it (or that this is evidence that someone/something did). I'd say that one has nothing to do with the other there either. No?

[Central Scrutinizer]

Just because you can ask such questions, does not mean they demand or deserve an answer

[caliber66]

It doesn't. Except that you seem to be suggesting (unless I misunderstood you) that the fact that there is no answer for our origin suggests that someone/something had to create it (or that this is evidence that someone/something did). I'd say that one has nothing to do with the other there either. No?

In the context of my quote above, I am not suggesting that someone/something had to create the universe, although that is my belief. I cannot conceive of it being otherwise.

[TheMaker]

It's foolish, however, that people pursue this as a debate to be *won.* Your tone and proclamation of affiliation comes across like a disciple, trying to evangelize for converts. I don't know. You don't know. I have my beliefs that evolve. I hope yours are too.

 

My tone is in fact quite weary. When you're one of only a few million people in human history who gauge the world on its face, trust me, you start to feel pretty worn down after interacting with the faithful for any amount of time. You can forgive me for saying so, but watching an entire planet drink the proverbial Kool-Aid isn't exactly my idea of a grand old time.

 

At any rate, atheism is not an evangelical pursuit. I mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson in my last post; I don't want to put too fine a point on this man's atheism, since he is first and foremost a brilliant astrophysicist, but he has a wonderful line about scientific pursuit that can (and ultimately must) be applied as well to the question of god/s: "If you have to lead your argument [by listing your credentials], then you don't have an argument. I like to believe that by the time I'm done, you feel empowered by the information I gave you, so that you're not going to say, 'This is true because Tyson said it,' you're going to say, 'This is true because now I understand it and I can present that argument,' without reference back to me." When you're dealing with objective truths, you're not looking for somebody to teach you what to think; you're looking for somebody who is equipped to teach you how to think. There's a world of difference between the two.

 

The word atheism connotes a lot of unfortunate things in our society. I think the faithful tend to see it almost as a badge of pride, when in reality it exists only to combat their superstition. It's unfortunate that skeptical inquirers are branded thusly, since it tends to obfuscate the meat of our actual argument. I assure you, friend, we are not looking for saviours or idols, and it pisses us off when we see shortsighted reviews of books by authors such as Harris and Dan Dennett refer to their readership as "disciples." Once again, for those of you in the intellectual cheap seats: these men aren't teaching people what to think; they're teaching them how to think. And there's a big, big difference separating those schools.

[caliber66]

So you're saying Neil deGrasse Tyson can tell me where all the matter and energy in the universe came from?

[Central Scrutinizer]

My tone is in fact quite weary. When you're one of only a few million people in human history who gauge the world on its face, trust me, you start to feel pretty worn down after interacting with the faithful for any amount of time. You can forgive me for saying so, but watching an entire planet drink the proverbial Kool-Aid isn't exactly my idea of a grand old time.

 

At any rate, atheism is not an evangelical pursuit. I mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson in my last post; I don't want to put too fine a point on this man's atheism, since he is first and foremost a brilliant astrophysicist, but he has a wonderful line about scientific pursuit that can (and ultimately must) be applied as well to the question of god/s: "If you have to lead your argument [by listing your credentials], then you don't have an argument. I like to believe that by the time I'm done, you feel empowered by the information I gave you, so that you're not going to say, 'This is true because Tyson said it,' you're going to say, 'This is true because now I understand it and I can present that argument,' without reference back to me." When you're dealing with objective truths, you're not looking for somebody to teach you what to think; you're looking for somebody who is equipped to teach you how to think. There's a world of difference between the two.

 

The word atheism connotes a lot of unfortunate things in our society. I think the faithful tend to see it almost as a badge of pride, when in reality it exists only to combat their superstition. It's unfortunate that skeptical inquirers are branded thusly, since it tends to obfuscate the meat of our actual argument. I assure you, friend, we are not looking for saviours or idols, and it pisses us off when we see shortsighted reviews of books by authors such as Harris and Dan Dennett refer to their readership as "disciples." Once again, for those of you in the intellectual cheap seats: these men aren't teaching people what to think; they're teaching them how to think.

His quote is based on *having* to argue. The point is, it's a pursuit, in which all should be welcome, each person has an equal stake because we don't know and we only do what finds support and comfort in our minds, in our beliefs and in the way we lead our lives.

 

It's not the word "athiesm" that has connotations. It is the practicioners who hand out the moniker, and their behavior which create stereotypes, just as those who reinforce religious stereotypes. Building the same wall from different sides.

[TheMaker]

So you're saying Neil deGrasse Tyson can tell me where all the matter and energy in the universe came from?

 

Of course he can't. And neither can any man-made god. The difference is that Tyson doesn't pretend to have answers to every question. The scientific community is embodied by two qualities that are wholly absent from every religion I have ever encountered: humility and rigorous analytical process.

 

You're asking a big question. Religion's stance is effectively, "Well, we have the answers, and in death, they will be revealed to you, my child. We have stopped looking, and we are content." Science, on the other hand, is saying to you, "Shit, man, that's really interesting. We are actively looking into this, and we'll get back to you."

[caliber66]

Of course he can't. And neither can any man-made god. The difference is that Tyson doesn't pretend to have answers to every question. The scientific community is embodied by two qualities that are wholly absent from every religion I have ever encountered: humility and rigorous analytical process.

But if he is an atheist, does he not contend that there is no creator?

 

Re: humility, I humbly suggest that evangelical atheists (despite what you may say, they absolutely exist) are the very definition of arrogance. They have no better answer to the big question than anyone.

[Moe_Syzlak]

But if he is an atheist, does he not contend that there is no creator?

 

Re: humility, I humbly suggest that evangelical atheists (despite what you may say, they absolutely exist) are the very definition of arrogance. They have no better answer to the big question than anyone.

Agreed re evangelical anythings. As an atheist, I am contending nothing. Lack of belief in something is not automatically contention in disbelief. I know that is hard to grasp, but it is the truth. The mere fact that I don't know necessitates that I do not believe in a creator. BUT I don't contend that there isn't one. I merely search for answers that may or may not include a creator.

[Good Old Neon]

C'mon, you are CONSTANTLY asking yourself "who am I? and "why am I here?" Why are you HERE? On this list. Why do you choose to quote Hitchens' scripture? Why to you posture on the issues you vehemently defend on here? What impact will you have on the world? What do you prefer for lunch? What do you want to do with the rest of your career? What is the best car to drive? Do you really need a fork to get the last olive out of the jar?

 

Why do we have an inquiring mind; why do two people with opposite opinions discuss it? It's because we *think* we know, but we don't know.

 

You approach everything as an impiricist and I think that is what removes the spiritual issue from the equation -- I don't mean that as a negative.. It's just the way you look at things. One of my favorite books of the 70s/80s was Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, because it looked at the tension between the empiracists and the romanticists. Tinkerer vs dabbler, to oversimplify.

 

To bring it back to music -- and Wilco -- how do you approach music, the arts and appreciation? Is it an analytical precision, variations of a mathematical formula? Where does the artist's "soul" fall within empiricism?

 

Well, everyone once in a while I take a break and contemplate Kate Winslett circa Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but yeah, I do spend quite a bit of time thinking about these sorts of things.

 

I chose to quote Hitchens because I felt what he had to say spoke directly to the subject at hand (of course, I cannot help but notice you avoided challenging the quote itself). I could have quoted Einstein or Hawking or Russell or Sagan or Dennett or any number of philosophers and scientists whose views are predicated not on faith, but testable, quantifiable, empirical evidence. You seem to be attempting equate religion with science, as if they both posit an equally valid view of the natural order of the universe, but they don