TPF : New Atheism

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... hically/p1
The 'New Atheism' : How May it Be Evaluated Philosophically?


I will look out for the writing of Dr Stenger because it is worth looking at the idea of the new atheism from a wider angle. — Jack Cummins

You will find Stenger very clear in his arguments, because he takes a firm stand on Naturalism. You could even call his inflexible position Dogmatism. If you agree with his Naturalist premises though, you must agree with the logic of his Atheist conclusions. But philosophers tend to be open to other interpretations of Nature, that may not be of interest to empirical scientists. Especially, regarding Ontology and questions about "something from nothing".

Naturalism takes the existence of this physical world for granted. So the scientific evidence for a specific "creation event" came as a shock. But, they have adapted their belief in eternal Nature, to imagine explanations for a time-before-time, when our knowable world didn't exist as we know it. Yet, Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are simply extensions of their original Naturalist premises across the Big Bang abyss into the unknowable what-if.

Ironically, the Wiki quote below says he also used a statistical probability argument, for which the data must be imagined, to prove that our world is nothing special. Hence, not created by an omniscient deity. However, other scientists have used similar anthropic logic to prove just the opposite. So, apparently, the Las Vegas odds are in favor of the "house", who determines the odds (premises) you will play with. So, are you going to play by house-always-wins rules, or your own personal reasoning? If you are a Theist, Stenger will challenge your assumptions. But, his own presumptions are also subject to philosophical questioning.


Stenger was an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He was a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

The anthropic principle is the principle that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in the particular type of universe capable of developing and sustaining sentient life. ___Wikipedia

Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218 ... _Principle

[Gnomon]

-Two issues. Naturalism is not one thing. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism..not Philosophical Naturalism. — Nickolasgaspar

Perhaps. But, since this is a philosophical forum, I'm referring to the position defined in the quote below. So, there's not much distinction between them.

Philosophical Naturalism :
naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy

Now, In science the big bang event is not labeled as "creation"
(since it would imply extra agencies) but as "formation" so there was no real shock caused by that observation. — Nickolasgaspar

I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes.

"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking

- [1] Anthropic principles and [2] statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy). — Nickolasgaspar

I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward.

ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

[Gnomon]

-Well the definition is wrong or vague at best. First of all there isn't such a thing as Ascientific method. — Nickolasgaspar

The quote referred to "scientific method[s}" to contrast with "philosophical methods". Note, I added the "s" to improve the parallel, and to make you feel better. :joke:

The fact is that the formation of the universe was not a creation act...at least we can not make that claim. — Nickolasgaspar

On what basis do you make that factual claim?

-Cherry picking on Stephen's poetic irony? You do see the irony in his words.....don't you??? — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea. He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be. Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths.

“The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can't grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.”
___A. Einstein
https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Al ... g/creation

"The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story."
___Barry Powell

indeed, I placed them backwards. — Nickolasgaspar

Apparently, you are going to place everything in this topic backwards. Are you just being contrarian?

[Gnomon]

I wonder to what extent those who believe in Spinoza' s God may be considered to be theists or atheists? — Jack Cummins

Somewhere in the middle. Spinoza's God/Nature may be too close to Pantheism for the comfort of Atheists. And it was dismissed by his contemporary Blaise Pascal as the impotent "god of philosophers", lacking an offer of salvation. But, the notion of identifying God & Nature could be acceptable to Deists, who believe in a Supreme Being or First Cause of some kind, but not one who violates natural laws with miracles.

[Gnomon]

It is all about interpretation and I do wonder if there is a middle ground rather than theism and atheism and I don't mean agnosticism because that is like a waiting area to make a choice — Jack Cummins

Yes. Both Atheists and Theists have some good arguments to support their polarized positions : magic vs matter. But they are both Gnostic, in the sense that they feel sure they know the true answer to the God Question. That's why I sometimes describe myself as an Agnostic Deist. Because I have concluded that logically there should be a First & Final Cause of our temporary universe, and a comprehensive holistic Aspect/Entity of our dynamic, many-minded world. But my limited mind can't wrap around an uncaused Cause or an unbounded Mind.

Therefore, all I know about everything-actual-&-possible is just-a-theory. And, as a mere speck in the cosmic whole -- a fleeting instant in eternity -- I know nothing for sure about such all-encompassing generalities, universals & absolutes. So I can only think in terms of philosophical principles & poetic metaphors & rational speculations. For example, Cosmologists viewing the universe from the inside -- and from a materialist perspective -- construct imaginary models of what it would look like from the outside. Those speculative constructs typically look like either bubbles of unspecified-something, or evolving horns of burgeoning plenty, or in some cases as topological toroid rings. Yet, they are all pictured floating in the black emptiness of the unknown. And, they are all imaginary materialistic metaphors for a mind-boggling mystery.

As an Agnostic, I am ignorant of the Mind of God. I have no direct revelation from the Source. And yet, I am motivated to know what can be known about my cosmic context. So, I tend to use a variety of symbolic concepts, in a feeble attempt to comprehend the all-encompassing features & functions of the Logical All, of which you and I are minor parts. An alternative way to think of the Cosmos, including Life & Mind, is not as a place in space or time, but as a universal state of consciousness. Like Plato's Forms, which are not “out there”, but everywhere, everywhen, all-at-once.

However, Atheists might say there's no such thing as Everything, outside space-time. And Theists could object that my skimpy theory has no place for Favored People, or for salvation from imperfect Reality. Also, in my incomplete Agnostic theory of Everything, the world does not revolve around me or my kind. It's just a way to know a little something about the vast unknowable, and to make sense of the "blooming buzzing confusion" of incoming signals. Meanwhile, I'm content to wait for omniscience to set-in, before I place my faith in a mystery, or abandon all hope.

PS__There are several ways to interpret the general idea of an intentional universe. For example a> Panpsychism/Pantheism/PanDeism/PanEnDeism ; b> universe as mathematical simulation (a la Matrix) ; c> gestation of a baby god (a la Omega Point) ; and so forth. But I try not to get too specific in my speculations into the dark realm of manifold Possibilities . . . or too fantastic.
Note -- as you can see, like many others, I enjoy using science as a springboard to speculation into the unknown. But, I don't take such fictions for facts. And I'm not deterred by those who warn that anything outside the bounds of "settled science" is dark & dangerous : "here be dragons". I ain't afraid of no dragons! I have the wizard of Philosophy to guide me. :joke:


MULTIVERSE : AN UNBOUNDED SPHERE OF MANY SPHERES
42-46205410.jpg
PROGRESSION FROM BIG BANG TO BIG RIP
Big-Bang-to-Big-Rip-Illustration.jpg
COSMIC DONUT
960x0.jpg?fit=bounds&format=jpg&width=960
4 hours ago