Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I'll address it any time I feel like it is semantically 'due.'

 

[ExodusMe]

Seems like we have a Krauss apprentice in the house. @Nicholas Deka how do quantum fluctuations occur without a transfer from pre-existing energy?

 

[Non sequitur]

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.

Have you read his book?

An overwhelming majority doesn't talk about "nothing", but here's him addressing it in an open and fully disclosed way.

"First, I want to be clear about what kind of “nothing” I am
discussing at the moment. This is the simplest version of nothing,
namely empty space. For the moment, I will assume space exists,
with nothing at all in it, and that the laws of physics also exist.
Once again, I realize that in the revised versions of nothingness
that those who wish to continually redefine the word so that no
scientific definition is practical."

"While inflation demonstrates how empty space endowed with
energy can effectively create everything we see, along with an
unbelievably large and flat universe, it would be disingenuous to
suggest that empty space endowed with energy, which drives
inflation, is really nothing."

"Consider an electron-positron pair that spontaneously pops out
of empty space near the nucleus of an atom and affects the property
of that atom for the short time the pair exists. In what sense did
the electron or positron exist before?"

 

[Non sequitur]

Seems like we have a Krauss apprentice in the house. @Nicholas Deka how do quantum fluctuations occur without a transfer from pre-existing energy?

To my knowledge, they do . They arise from virtual particles.

 

[Non sequitur]

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.

He was in his book, and I agree most people should be.

 

[Moral Orel]

Seems like we have a Krauss apprentice in the house. @Nicholas Deka how do quantum fluctuations occur without a transfer from pre-existing energy?

You realize that Krauss wrote a book about all this stuff, it doesn't mean he discovered all this stuff right? This isn't a Krauss thing, it's a phenomena of quantum mechanics that scientists observe in the lab. As far as I can tell it traces back to a couple guys, John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt (in the 1960s) and then a guy named Dongshan He and a group of physicists in China made a mathematical proof based on it. So don't dismiss all this as the quack theory of one guy.

To your question, though, it would take a lot of math to prove it works, which is certainly above my pay grade, but I can explain what the concept is. You'd need a Phd in physics to try to refute or prove it.

So you've got the uncertainty principle which concerns the amount of change of energy over time. If the amount of energy is small, and it exists for a very short amount of time (something like 10^-40 of a second I think) then it can pop into existence for that long and stop existing without violating conservation of energy. What is happening is that a particle and an antiparticle show up at the same time and then almost immediately collide destroying each other. Because it is for such a short amount of time, conservation of energy isn't violated, but the effects of it showing up are still measurable. Sort of like how if you open a dam, the water rushes out, but the only thing that really changed was the dam door, you didn't make a change to the water.

This is verified science, by the way. Empty space has fluctuations of energy all the time and it is measured in the lab.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You realize that Krauss wrote a book about all this stuff, it doesn't mean he discovered all this stuff right? This isn't a Krauss thing, it's a phenomena of quantum mechanics that scientists observe in the lab. As far as I can tell it traces back to a couple guys, John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt (in the 1960s) and then a guy named Dongshan He and a group of physicists in China made a mathematical proof based on it. So don't dismiss all this as the quack theory of one guy.

To your question, though, it would take a lot of math to prove it works, which is certainly above my pay grade, but I can explain what the concept is. You'd need a Phd in physics to try to refute or prove it.

So you've got the uncertainty principle which concerns the amount of change of energy over time. If the amount of energy is small, and it exists for a very short amount of time (something like 10^-40 of a second I think) then it can pop into existence for that long and stop existing without violating conservation of energy. What is happening is that a particle and an antiparticle show up at the same time and then almost immediately collide destroying each other. Because it is for such a short amount of time, conservation of energy isn't violated, but the effects of it showing up are still measurable. Sort of like how if you open a dam, the water rushes out, but the only thing that really changed was the dam door, you didn't make a change to the water.

This is verified science, by the way. Empty space has fluctuations of energy all the time and it is measured in the lab.

Do I remember correctly that it is that phenomena which is illustrated in this graph:

That's "empty space", right there.
That's what it looks like in a "quantum vacuum".
For all intents and purposes, there is "nothing" in there.

Look at all the stuff happening though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The burden of proof is established only in a debate situation and is determined by the debate authority

No. Burden of proof has nothing to do with debate settings and everything with making claims. It's always upto the person making the claim, to support said claim, no matter the setting.

A good way to determine who has the burden of proof is based on the question

There is only one way to determine who has the burden of proof, and that way is to ask the question "who's making the claim?".

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.

Sure. Except off course, that that is not the question being addressed in the atheism-theism discussion. In that discussion, the claims of theism are being discussed. Not questions.

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.

But it's still a science book. The only difference is that in such a book, non-technical jargon is used so that the uneducated can understand basic principles.
Nevertheless, the topics talked about are scientific topics - only in laymen terms.

It seems he is knowingly misleading his audience by using the word nothing in the manner that he does

I disagree.

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.

Or... he uses "nothing" in this way, because that is what he actually means by it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

"nothing" has undergone quite a few definition changes over the years.

Back in the day, the "stuff" in an empty box was "nothing". Then we discovered that there are all kinds molecules in there, like air and stuff.

Then the "stuff" in a vaccuum was considered "nothing". Then we discovered that space is something by itself and that all kind of weird quantum stuff is happening in that vaccuum. It actually has energy as well.


Yes, there is that "philosophical nothing". As in "absolutely not anything".
But what is that? Is that even a state that can actually exist in reality? And what does it even mean for "absolutely not anything" to "exist"?

This "state" only seems to exist in the brains of philosophers. Pun intended

Or like Krauss also said once, which made me lol: "myeah... philosophers are experts at nothing..."

 

[Moral Orel]

Do I remember correctly that it is that phenomena which is illustrated in this graph:

That's "empty space", right there.
That's what it looks like in a "quantum vacuum".
For all intents and purposes, there is "nothing" in there.

Look at all the stuff happening though

Yep, that's the stuff. I believe it's energy moving around as a result of particles spontaneously beginning to exist, and then ceasing to exist, constantly.

Yes, there is that "philosophical nothing". As in "absolutely not anything".
But what is that? Is that even a state that can actually exist in reality? And what does it even mean for "absolutely not anything" to "exist"?

Think about this, "absolutely not anything" has no dimensions. It has no location. How could something that isn't anywhere possibly exist?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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).

He doesn't really and it seems like you haven't read it. Because he explains this in one of the first chapters.

It's more like pseudo-objective.

He starts with 2 simple premises/definitions, which are strictly speaking subjective:
- good are all those decisions and actions which maximise well-being of concious creatures.
- bad are all those decisions and actions wich maximise the suffering of concious creatures.

He then goes on to say that if you disagree with these premises, then one can only wonder what you mean by morality and ethics, if not a system of rules to maximise well-being for all.
One can wonder indeed, how one can have a conversation with someone concerning morality, if that person does not agree that well-being is preferable to suffering.

Now, once we are in agreement about those premises... what follows can be objectively evaluated. We can take each decision and action on a case by case basis and evaluate wheter it causes more suffering or if it promotes well-being.

Seems perfectly sensible.

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.

No, that's not true either.
Our moral inclinations are the result of our evolutionary history - that is true.

The only reason why we have such a thing as morality, is because we developed as a social species that operates in groups. The success of a social group dependend on co-operation is directly dependend on the behaviour of individuals of said group.

There is a reason why all cultures around the world have come up with rules for what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Many of those core rules are actually pretty much the same everywhere.

This fits Harris' moral theory. If we can agree that well-being is more preferable to suffering, then we will come up with similar ideas on how to organise a society.

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.

Are you sure that he wasn't talking about the victims of rapists, liars and thieves?

I'ld agree though. If raping, lying and stealing didn't have a negative impact on well-being or the success of a society, then it wouldn't be considered immoral.

But it does have a negative impact, so to dwell on that seems like an exercise in futility.

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.

What is "good", if not those things that maximise well-being?
What is "evil", if not those things that maximise suffering?

How do YOU define "good" and "evil"? And how do YOU decide wheter action or decision X, is "good" or "evil"?

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Wait, philosophers' intuitions about reality are contradicted by what we find when we use rigorous methods to actually investigate nature? Stop the presses!

 

[Uber Genius]

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

So you didn't understand the response?

Claims 1- no god(s) exist

Is a philosophical claim described historically as atheism.

Claim 2 - I don't know if god(s) exist is NOT a knowledge claim.

Claim 3 - I know that no one can know whether god(s) exist is a knowledge claims.

What happens when you equivocate on the term, "Atheism?"

You conflate two knowledge claims and one claim that is not knowledge into one claim.

Only the agnostic (weak) has no burden of defending the claim from a philosophical standpoint.

When you conflate all three terms with the intent to avoid the burden of defending you claim you do a couple things. Firstly, refuse to justify your beliefs.

So the claims "god(s)don't exist," and "No one can know whether god(s) exist," no longer being justified, are by definition Not knowledge claims.

They live on the same plane as opinions or favorite flavors of ice cream, which hardly is worth discussing and certainly not worthy of wasting time writing about those beliefs in a Christian Forum.

Secondly, it is intellectually lazy as there are dozens of good reasons to hold to atheism or strong agnosticism so only the lazy person is unable to marshal any arguments in support of their claim.

And a weak agnostic who was ever the less interested in the subject would be looking at the atheist philosophy pro-atheist recommendations rather than defending philosophically foolish (Internet infidel philosophical dodges).

Although I use the term "New Atheist," to represent a fundamentalism that focuses on rhetoric rather than logic and rationality, and needlessly I might add, the Internet infidel is a cut below the new atheist. Highschool degrees are rare with this community. And attempts to introduce the slightest modicum of philosophy 101 are met with mocking and derision or a flurry of pseudo (fake) intellectua-sounding arguments.

No tricks. Just support your claims to knowledge. Only the weak agnostic can get a pass and your clearly not one of those.

 

[Moral Orel]

Although I use the term "New Atheist," to represent a fundamentalism that focuses on rhetoric rather than logic and rationality, and needlessly I might add, the Internet infidel is a cut below the new atheist. Highschool degrees are rare with this community.

Atheists are statistically more likely to have more education than theists throughout the world. Your ad hominem fails.

 

[KCfromNC]

So you didn't understand the response?

Claims 1- no god(s) exist

Is a philosophical claim described historically as atheism.

Hey look! Another case where philosophy and the real world fail to intersect. Color me surprised.

Let us know when you're going to time travel back in history to discuss this with people then. Until that point, it might be more useful to discuss what the people you're addressing actually think about a topic.

 

[ExodusMe]

He doesn't really and it seems like you haven't read it. Because he explains this in one of the first chapters.

It's more like pseudo-objective.

He starts with 2 simple premises/definitions, which are strictly speaking subjective:
- good are all those decisions and actions which maximise well-being of concious creatures.
- bad are all those decisions and actions wich maximise the suffering of concious creatures.

He then goes on to say that if you disagree with these premises, then one can only wonder what you mean by morality and ethics, if not a system of rules to maximise well-being for all.
One can wonder indeed, how one can have a conversation with someone concerning morality, if that person does not agree that well-being is preferable to suffering.

Now, once we are in agreement about those premises... what follows can be objectively evaluated. We can take each decision and action on a case by case basis and evaluate wheter it causes more suffering or if it promotes well-being.

Seems perfectly sensible.



No, that's not true either.
Our moral inclinations are the result of our evolutionary history - that is true.

The only reason why we have such a thing as morality, is because we developed as a social species that operates in groups. The success of a social group dependend on co-operation is directly dependend on the behaviour of individuals of said group.

There is a reason why all cultures around the world have come up with rules for what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Many of those core rules are actually pretty much the same everywhere.

This fits Harris' moral theory. If we can agree that well-being is more preferable to suffering, then we will come up with similar ideas on how to organise a society.



Are you sure that he wasn't talking about the victims of rapists, liars and thieves?

I'ld agree though. If raping, lying and stealing didn't have a negative impact on well-being or the success of a society, then it wouldn't be considered immoral.

But it does have a negative impact, so to dwell on that seems like an exercise in futility.

What is "good", if not those things that maximise well-being?
What is "evil", if not those things that maximise suffering?

How do YOU define "good" and "evil"? And how do YOU decide wheter action or decision X, is "good" or "evil"?

To define good and evil based on pleasure and suffering is moral equivocation because we can imagine many scenarios where pleasure and suffering would amoral or where suffering would be good and pleasure would be evil. For instance, a person falling and scraping their knee. There would be no moral significance to that suffering. Also, a person who decides not to have children because it would be painful or a person who decides not to have children because it would impinge on their free-time for themselves.

You are addressing a separate issue which is the foundation of moral duties & values. A lot of the things you list are morally good, but they have no objective foundation from the view of an atheist (as you admit). It doesn't sound like you have a problem with that as you admit that the spectrum of Harris' moral landscape is subjective.

This is another issue as on one hand you criticize people by saying "how one can have a conversation with someone concerning morality, if that person does not agree that well-being is preferable to suffering." and on the other hand you agree that Sam Harris' moral landscape is subjective. Seems like a conundrum to me as you are affirming that any type of pleasure can occupy the peak of Sam Harris' moral landscape.

Do you think that genocide is okay if it promotes the well being of future generations?

 

[ExodusMe]

You realize that Krauss wrote a book about all this stuff, it doesn't mean he discovered all this stuff right? This isn't a Krauss thing, it's a phenomena of quantum mechanics that scientists observe in the lab. As far as I can tell it traces back to a couple guys, John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt (in the 1960s) and then a guy named Dongshan He and a group of physicists in China made a mathematical proof based on it. So don't dismiss all this as the quack theory of one guy.

To your question, though, it would take a lot of math to prove it works, which is certainly above my pay grade, but I can explain what the concept is. You'd need a Phd in physics to try to refute or prove it.

So you've got the uncertainty principle which concerns the amount of change of energy over time. If the amount of energy is small, and it exists for a very short amount of time (something like 10^-40 of a second I think) then it can pop into existence for that long and stop existing without violating conservation of energy. What is happening is that a particle and an antiparticle show up at the same time and then almost immediately collide destroying each other. Because it is for such a short amount of time, conservation of energy isn't violated, but the effects of it showing up are still measurable. Sort of like how if you open a dam, the water rushes out, but the only thing that really changed was the dam door, you didn't make a change to the water.

This is verified science, by the way. Empty space has fluctuations of energy all the time and it is measured in the lab.

Do I remember correctly that it is that phenomena which is illustrated in this graph:

That's "empty space", right there.
That's what it looks like in a "quantum vacuum".
For all intents and purposes, there is "nothing" in there.

Look at all the stuff happening though

I think popular science has pulled the wool over the eyes of the sheep as 'empty space' isn't actually empty.

Side comment.... it is kind of funny you posted that graph and said "that is empty space right there" as proof that the universe can pop into existence from nothing. You realize it is impossible to observe events that are external to our universe? That was just funny to me...

 

[Moral Orel]

I think popular science has pulled the wool over the eyes of the sheep as 'empty space' isn't actually empty.

Well, it has spacetime in it, but if you think there are particles there you're wrong. Where space is empty, virtual particles will appear and disappear. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as empty space.

Side comment.... it is kind of funny you posted that graph and said "that is empty space right there" as proof that the universe can pop into existence from nothing. You realize it is impossible to observe events that are external to our universe? That was just funny to me...

It would be funnier if you actually read what I wrote. I explicitly said I can't prove it to you, so I'm not going to try. And that graph isn't a representation of a universe popping into existence, it's an example of a true vacuum still containing activity as virtual particles pop into existence. I didn't talk about universes popping into existence, just particles. That's all you asked about. TM didn't talk about universes popping into existence either.

Dunning-Kruger strikes again...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you didn't understand the response?

Claims 1- no god(s) exist

Is a philosophical claim described historically as atheism.

That's nice.

It has nothing to do with most of us, who don't make that claim.

Claim 3 - I know that no one can know whether god(s) exist is a knowledge claims.

Which is easily supported, simply by pointing at the supernatural nature of god concepts. Supernatural things are pretty much defined as being unknowable.

What happens when you equivocate on the term, "Atheism?"

Silly discussions, such as this one?

You conflate two knowledge claims and one claim that is not knowledge into one claim.

Only the agnostic (weak) has no burden of defending the claim from a philosophical standpoint.

Right, which is what we agnostic atheists have been telling you all along. Glad we sorted that out then. But somehow, I think it's only a matter of time before you fall back into the falsehoods and strawmen...

When you conflate all three terms with the intent to avoid the burden of defending you claim you do a couple things. Firstly, refuse to justify your beliefs.

Disbelieving something, is not a belief.

The words "disbelief" and "belief" are not synonymous.

So the claims "god(s)don't exist," and "No one can know whether god(s) exist," no longer being justified, are by definition Not knowledge claims.

I don't make the first claim.
I can easily support the second. In fact, merely pointing to the fact that theists require "faith", is already sufficient.

If it could be known, then no faith would be required.

Secondly, it is intellectually lazy as there are dozens of good reasons to hold to atheism or strong agnosticism so only the lazy person is unable to marshal any arguments in support of their claim.

Again: there are no such claims.
We aren't making any claims. It's just you who's insisting otherwise.

Instead of arguing against what you believe "historical atheists" said or didn't say, perhaps it would be more productive to actually respond what people here are actually saying.

And when these people say "hey, that's not what I'm saying", then perhaps accept that instead of insisting otherwise.

Although I use the term "New Atheist," to represent a fundamentalism that focuses on rhetoric rather than logic and rationality

That's actually quite hilarious to me, that you say that "new atheists" are the fundamentalists. Not that I understand what the difference would be between a "fundamental atheist" and a "moderate atheist" though.... But it seems that you are saying that "new atheists" (=the fundamentalists) do NOT claim that god doesn't exist, while the "historical atheist" (=the moderates then, I guess?) DO make that claim.

It seems to me to be the exact opposite, if we accept these premises.
I'ld say that the one making knowledge claims (= "god doesn't exist") is a much more "fundamental" position then those who merely say "I see no reason to believe your theist claims"

, and needlessly I might add, the Internet infidel is a cut below the new atheist. Highschool degrees are rare with this community.

LOL! Owkay then.

And attempts to introduce the slightest modicum of philosophy 101 are met with mocking and derision or a flurry of pseudo (fake) intellectua-sounding arguments.

No amount of "philosophy" is a substitute for actual evidence, when trying to discuss / find out if X exists or not.

No tricks. Just support your claims to knowledge.

What claims are that, again?
Because I'm fairly sure I didn't make such claims concerning this topic.

Only the weak agnostic can get a pass and your clearly not one of those.

I'm an agnostic atheist.
I can't possibly know there is a god, because I can't demonstrate or falsify the untestable.
I don't accept the claim that there is a god, because I have exactly zero reason to do so. For the same reason that I can't possibly know one way or the other: it's not testable/verifiable/falsifiable.

Models that aren't testable/verifiable/falsifiable, are potentially infinite in number (only limited by one's imagination) and completely without merrit, meaning and value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To define good and evil based on pleasure and suffering is moral equivocation because we can imagine many scenarios where pleasure and suffering would amoral or where suffering would be good and pleasure would be evil.

I didn't say "pleasure". I said well-being.

For instance, a person falling and scraping their knee. There would be no moral significance to that suffering.

Derp. Because it's an accident, not the result of a decision or action.
Now, if someone would push a person, causing him to fall and hurt themselves, that's another story.

Also, a person who decides not to have children because it would be painful or a person who decides not to have children because it would impinge on their free-time for themselves.

What's wrong with that and how is it relevant to what we are talking about?

You are addressing a separate issue which is the foundation of moral duties & values. A lot of the things you list are morally good, but they have no objective foundation from the view of an atheist (as you admit). It doesn't sound like you have a problem with that as you admit that the spectrum of Harris' moral landscape is subjective.

Only insofar as the premises go of what the words "good" and "evil" mean. Once we agree on those definitions, we can easily make objective evaluations of actions to label them good or bad.

So, do you agree with the premises?
Here they are again:
- good: those actions and decisions that maximize well-being of sentient creatures
- bad: those actions and decisions that increase suffereing of sentient creatures

Do you object to these definitions? If yes, why?
How would they have to change for you to agree to them?

This is another issue as on one hand you criticize people by saying "how one can have a conversation with someone concerning morality, if that person does not agree that well-being is preferable to suffering."

Well, yeah....
Indeed, how can one have a conversation about morality, if one can't even agree that "suffering = bad, well-being = good"??

It's a serious question. I would like to have an answer.

and on the other hand you agree that Sam Harris' moral landscape is subjective.

No, I said it is pseudo-objective. It is objective insofar as we can objectively evaluate actions and decisions in moral terms. The "pseudo" is about what the intended goals of the moral system are. And those goals are: more well-being, less suffering.

Again: why is this a problem?

The premises, furthermore, are only subjective for the simple reason that they are human ideas. We don't find these definitions under a rock. We concluded that well-being is better then suffering, simply from experience.

Just look around: nations with higher well-being and minimized suffering do better in all aspects then nations where it is the other way round.

Example nations with maximised well being and general rules of conduct that are geared towards maximising well-being and decreasing suffering:
- Sweden
- Finland
- Denmark
- ... (just about any western democracy, really)

Now, how about examples of the other way round? It's not dificult to come up with some examples. I'm sure you have already thought of a few:
- North Korea
- Afghanistan
- ... (just about any dictatorship, really)

So, in which of these countries would YOU want to live?

Again: what exactly is the problem?
You keep complaining, but you're not actually explaining what the problem is OR what the "correct" way would be then, in your opinion.

I'ld really like to know what it is, exactly, that you are objecting to.

Seems like a conundrum to me as you are affirming that any type of pleasure can occupy the peak of Sam Harris' moral landscape.

No, I never said that. See first line of this post. I didn't say "pleasure". I said "well-being".

Do you think that genocide is okay if it promotes the well being of future generations?

The problem with that "if", is that it simply isn't true in reality.
I don't see how genocide (= the indiscriminate killing of a large group of people based on some trait like skin color, religion, ethnicity, etc) could ever promote well-being. Today or in the future.

It's like saying "if the eiffel tower was small enough, would it fit in your pocket?"
Well... yeah... but.... The eiffel tower isn't small enough........................................