Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

[Uber Genius]

In "Tricks 1" I highlighted how the New Atheists attempt to redefine "Atheism," so as to avoid defending the claim, God does not exist."

They do this by equivocation and a false dichotomy.

Today, I will introduce another example of bad, irrational thinking.

The goal of this series will be to help Christians defend against the rhetoric with rationality. There is much to be discussed with "Seekers," but little or none with "Seekers In Name Only," referred to as SINOs.

Also, Theists are guilty of similar rhetorical tricks, and so this introduction can go both ways.

Larry Krauss is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor at Arizona State University.

In 2012 he wrote a book called "A universe from Nothing."

Krauss writes, in the first two pages of chapter 10 ,"Nothing is Unstable," :

1 - Nothing is made of "Empty space is complicated."
2 - Nothing contains a "boiling brew of virtual particles"
3 - "strength of the energy [SIC] field has to be huge"
4 - "Nothing is unstable"
5 - "follows the rules of quantum mechanics"
6 - "Never the less, all these phenomena imply that under the right conditions not only nothing can become something, but it is required to."

Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!

Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
Nothing has no energy field
Nothing has no instability
Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.

The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself." (We saw this approach repeatedly in "Tricks Part 1)

This equivocation is always meant to deceive. But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.

There are many good scientist doing work on higg's fields and completing the model of the large-scale structure of the universes they are theist, agnostic, and atheist alike.

David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” He reviewed Krauss's book in The New York Times saying, " all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."

Albert is NOT saying, Krauss is wrong about theism, Albert shares Krauss's view on that point. Instead Albert laments the use of subterfuge and name calling in place of arguments against the recalcitrant facts of theism.

Please join me in citing a plethora of equivocation examples in either arguments pro or con theism.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It should actually read: Atheism. I don't believe you because you haven't proven your deity claim to be true.

 

[ExodusMe]

In "The Moral Landscape" Sam Harris attempts to develop a system of morals not based on right and wrong, but based on whether it "promotes the well-being of conscious creatures".

This is equivocation because he ends up using good and evil in a non-moral manner.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, it's remarkable that Krauss actually made it through all the loopholes of publishing with such a terrible thesis.

 

[Non sequitur]

In "Tricks 1" I highlighted how the New Atheists attempt to redefine "Atheism," so as to avoid defending the claim, God does not exist."

They do this by equivocation and a false dichotomy.

Today, I will introduce another example of bad, irrational thinking.

The goal of this series will be to help Christians defend against the rhetoric with rationality. There is much to be discussed with "Seekers," but little or none with "Seekers In Name Only," referred to as SINOs.

Also, Theists are guilty of similar rhetorical tricks, and so this introduction can go both ways.

Larry Krauss is an American-Canadian theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a professor at Arizona State University.

In 2012 he wrote a book called "A universe from Nothing."

Krauss writes, in the first two pages of chapter 10 ,"Nothing is Unstable," :

1 - Nothing is made of "Empty space is complicated."
2 - Nothing contains a "boiling brew of virtual particles"
3 - "strength of the energy [SIC] field has to be huge"
4 - "Nothing is unstable"
5 - "follows the rules of quantum mechanics"
6 - "Never the less, all these phenomena imply that under the right conditions not only nothing can become something, but it is required to."

Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!

Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
Nothing has no energy field
Nothing has no instability
Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.

The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself." (We saw this approach repeatedly in "Tricks Part 1)

This equivocation is always meant to deceive. But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.

There are many good scientist doing work on higg's fields and completing the model of the large-scale structure of the universes they are theist, agnostic, and atheist alike.

David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” He reviewed Krauss's book in The New York Times saying, " all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."

Albert is NOT saying, Krauss is wrong about theism, Albert shares Krauss's view on that point. Instead Albert laments the use of subterfuge and name calling in place of arguments against the recalcitrant facts of theism.

Please join me in citing a plethora of equivocation examples in either arguments pro or con theism.

Having not read it, even though Krauss is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies, I've read that other people disagree. I call hogwash.

It just feels wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Having not read it, even though Krauss is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies, I've read that other people disagree. I call hogwash.

It just feels wrong.

Yeah, somehow philosophers telling scientists they don't know how to do their jobs doesn't sit right, does it?

To the OP, two things:

David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia

This is a fallacious use of an appeal to authority. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. You could cite an actual physicist who claims Krauss is wrong about his theories, but you cited a philosopher who is utterly unqualified to talk about Krauss's knowledge of science.

Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!

Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
Nothing has no energy field
Nothing has no instability
Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.

I thought defining things by the lack of an attribute was dishonest???

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In "Tricks 1" I highlighted how the New Atheists attempt to redefine "Atheism," so as to avoid defending the claim, God does not exist."

Why would the "new atheist" have to defend a claim, that he is not making?

They do this by equivocation and a false dichotomy.

What is fallacious about not making a claim?

Today, I will introduce another example of bad, irrational thinking.

In 2012 he wrote a book called "A universe from Nothing."

Krauss writes, in the first two pages of chapter 10 ,"Nothing is Unstable," :

1 - Nothing is made of "Empty space is complicated."
2 - Nothing contains a "boiling brew of virtual particles"
3 - "strength of the energy [SIC] field has to be huge"
4 - "Nothing is unstable"
5 - "follows the rules of quantum mechanics"
6 - "Never the less, all these phenomena imply that under the right conditions not only nothing can become something, but it is required to."

Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!

Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
Nothing has no energy field
Nothing has no instability
Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.

When a physicist talks about "nothing", he generally means something rather different then when you use that term in every-day conversation.

The only irrational thing here, is your intellectual dishonesty.

Atheism doesn't include any claims about anything. And most definatly has nothing to say about anything but theism. So no, atheism doesn't provide any frameworks or models for the origins of the universe.

The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself."

Right. Maybe you should think about that, while you are pretending that when a theoretical physicists talks about "nothing", he means the same thing as laymen people mean in day-to-day conversation.

This equivocation is always meant to deceive.

Or it's just ignorance and not intentional.

This OP is certainly a great example. I'm not sure if it is done to deceive or just out of ignorance, though.

But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.

Says the guy who tries to argue with a physicist about ideas in physics.

David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” He reviewed Krauss's book in The New York Times saying, " all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."

So?

Albert is NOT saying, Krauss is wrong about theism, Albert shares Krauss's view on that point. Instead Albert laments the use of subterfuge and name calling in place of arguments against the recalcitrant facts of theism.

Are you saying that Krauss' book "a universe from nothing" isn't about physics, but just a rant against theism? It's a book on theology instead of physics?

Please join me in citing a plethora of equivocation examples in either arguments pro or con theism.

The OP seems a great example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In "The Moral Landscape" Sam Harris attempts to develop a system of morals not based on right and wrong, but based on whether it "promotes the well-being of conscious creatures".

This is equivocation because he ends up using good and evil in a non-moral manner.

What is non-moral about promoting the well-being of conscious creatures?

 

[Jack of Spades]

It should actually read: Atheism. I don't believe you because you haven't proven your deity claim to be true.

To be precise, that would be metaphysical naturalism. Atheism is even more simple.

Atheism per se doesn't include any reason for why one rejects theism, it's just the end product. One can be an atheist because he feels like there is no God, or one can be an atheist as a result of signing into the logic of some philosophical system, such as metaphysical naturalism. Both are just as valid and full atheists.

In real life, a communist relative of mine, a rather simple guy with hardly tendency for scientific thinking, seemingly rejected theism out of spite of God being a part of the evil capitalist worldview. In my books he was as much an atheist, as more intellectual atheists who can articulate their reasoning better, are.

 

[KCfromNC]

In real life, a communist relative of mine, a rather simple guy with hardly tendency for scientific thinking, seemingly rejected theism out of spite of God being a part of the evil capitalist worldview. In my books he was as much an atheist, as more intellectual atheists who can articulate their reasoning better, are.

I bet he wasn't a True New Atheist(tm), though

 

[ExodusMe]

What is non-moral about promoting the well-being of conscious creatures?

In his book, "The Moral Landscape", Sam Harris accepts objective moral truths (e.g. that something is morally wrong whether you agree with it or not). Although he accepts objective moral values and duties, he attempts to define morals based on a type of evolutionary psychology and what we should or should not deny in regard to our biological development. Sam Harris essentially admits this toward the end of his book as "he makes the telling admission that if people such as rapists, liars, and thieves could be just as happy as good people, then his moral landscape would no longer be a moral landscape; rather it would just be a continuum of well-being, whose peaks are occupied by good and evil people alike" - taken from reasonable faith.

His moral landscape is not moral because it is essentially a "pleasurable life" vs a "life of suffering" and has nothing to do with moral good and evil.

Read more: Navigating Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape | Reasonable Faith.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, somehow philosophers telling scientists they don't know how to do their jobs doesn't sit right, does it?

To the OP, two things:

This is a fallacious use of an appeal to authority. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. You could cite an actual physicist who claims Krauss is wrong about his theories, but you cited a philosopher who is utterly unqualified to talk about Krauss's knowledge of science.

The level to which a philosopher can legitimately criticize Krauss could also depend on the extent to which Krauss believes either Methodological Naturalism or instead Philosophical Naturalism. And either way, both of these approaches to science are also open to the implications of the Philosophy of Science, despite however many pragmatic, technological effects we've witnessed from the hands of scientists.

Science doesn't happen in a ideological vaccuum.

 

[ExodusMe]

Why would the "new atheist" have to defend a claim, that he is not making?

What is fallacious about not making a claim?



When a physicist talks about "nothing", he generally means something rather different then when you use that term in every-day conversation.

The only irrational thing here, is your intellectual dishonesty.



Atheism doesn't include any claims about anything. And most definatly has nothing to say about anything but theism. So no, atheism doesn't provide any frameworks or models for the origins of the universe.



Right. Maybe you should think about that, while you are pretending that when a theoretical physicists talks about "nothing", he means the same thing as laymen people mean in day-to-day conversation.


Or it's just ignorance and not intentional.

This OP is certainly a great example. I'm not sure if it is done to deceive or just out of ignorance, though.



Says the guy who tries to argue with a physicist about ideas in physics.



So?



Are you saying that Krauss' book "a universe from nothing" isn't about physics, but just a rant against theism? It's a book on theology instead of physics?



The OP seems a great example.

The burden of proof is established only in a debate situation and is determined by the debate authority. A good way to determine who has the burden of proof is based on the question. For instance, if the question "Does God Exist?" is the debate topic and the atheist replies "No", then they would have to substantiate that claim. Same with the theist who answers "yes", so there would be an equal burden of proof.

In regards to the use of "nothing" by Krauss; I think the issue is that he is writing POP (Popular) science books. These are mainstream books that the average guy might pickup and read. It seems he is knowingly misleading his audience by using the word nothing in the manner that he does. I also think he uses nothing in this manner, because he realizes if he presupposes some type of matter that he then has to explain where the nothing came from. It is nothing more that wizardry to confuse his audience in my opinion.

 

[ExodusMe]

The level to which a philosopher can legitimately criticize Krauss could also depend on the extent to which Krauss believes either Methodological Naturalism or instead Philosophical Naturalism. And either way, both of these approaches to science are also open to the implications of the Philosophy of Science, despite however many pragmatic, technological effects we've witnessed from the hands of scientists.

Science doesn't happen in a ideological vaccuum.

Unfortunately, for many atheists (and theists) they would rather it did, but philosophers sure do have their fun with these "modern scientists" nowadays.

 

[Moral Orel]

I also think he uses nothing in this manner, because he realizes if he presupposes some type of matter that he then has to explain where the nothing came from. It is nothing more that wizardry to confuse his audience in my opinion.

Nothing, the way he uses it, means no matter, no energy, no space, no time. There's no reason to use the word "nothing" the way that philosophers want to use the word if there's no reason to believe that kind of "nothing" existed ever or anywhere. Virtual particles are particles that pop in and out of existence so fast that they essentially don't count as existing, and they do so in a place without matter, without energy, without space, without time, etc. And virtual particles are observed and tested in the lab and are not theoretical. So he does not "presuppose some type of matter".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Why would the "new atheist" have to defend a claim, that he is not making?

Until I see a lot of quotes from "New Atheists" asserting that they believe no possible gods exist, then every single post UberGenius makes is nothing but a straw man fallacy.

I was joking before when I said that I was going to start a "Tricks that New Christians play" thread, but I may need to reconsider.

Like this:

"Did you know that New Christians abuse their children? It's a documented fact. Then their apologists will try and say 'Oh, they're not really Christians'. Sick!"

Not exactly helpful, is it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nothing, the way he uses it, means no matter, no energy, no space, no time. There's no reason to use the word "nothing" the way that philosophers want to use the word if there's no reason to believe that kind of "nothing" existed ever or anywhere. Virtual particles are particles that pop in and out of existence so fast that they essentially don't count as existing, and they do so in a place without matter, without energy, without space, without time, etc. And virtual particles are observed and tested in the lab and are not theoretical. So he does not "presuppose some type of matter".

Right, he presupposes "fields" and "particles," and they get to count as nothing. And I'm actually fine with that, as long as we differentiate Scientific "nothing" from colloquial nothing as we do with the term 'Scientific Theory', which contrasts in meaning from the common usage of the term 'theory.'

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, he presupposes "fields" and "particles."

No, he does not "presuppose particles". Virtual particles are in evidence. Where there is "nothing" virtual particles will spontaneously appear. Sometimes they almost immediately disappear again, sometimes they stick around long enough to cause inflation creating space, time, matter, etc... Basically, if they aren't there (nothing) then they will be (something). It is not a presupposition of the constant existence of particles.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, he does not "presuppose particles". Virtual particles are in evidence. Where there is "nothing" virtual particles will spontaneously appear. Sometimes they almost immediately disappear again, sometimes they stick around long enough to cause inflation creating space, time, matter, etc... Basically, if they aren't there (nothing) then they will be (something). It is not a presupposition of the constant existence of particles.

Whatever. I understand the theory; I've read Krauss, I've read Frank Close. My point still stands. It wasn't "nothing" as most people think of it, and we need to be clear on this.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whatever. I understand the theory; I've read Krauss, I've read Frank Close. My point still stands. It wasn't "nothing" as most people think of it, and we need to be clear on this.

How most people think of "nothing" isn't in evidence, and doesn't need to be addressed until such a time comes that there is evidence that "nothing" ever actually was that way.