Agnostics vs. Atheists

Alphastar18 - are you also agnostic with regard to the question of whether fairies exist?
No.

Did you read my post above, regarding the nature of consciousness and how I argue that modern cognitive research and neuroscience provide a devastating blow against the plausibility of gods? I wonder how you would answer that argument?       

You raise the (to me) obvious point that an intelligent designer is more complicated than us and thus raises the question, who designed the designer, which is a good question.

The important part for me in that post of yours is this:
"Given that, why would you find the claim that a cognition, which is orders of magnitude more complex, would have eternally existed and set off the Big Bang, plausible?"

As I see it, either you have an (infinite) regress, which does not solve anything whatsoever, or you have a starting point (Big Bang), which also raises questions such as "how did all the material get there at the start?" And then, when we know what caused it, "how did that cause came to be?" etc. An (infinite) regress seems unavoidable here too.

My point is, either of these possibilities don't solve anything at all (They raise as many questions as they give answers), and thus there can't be a decent, fully explaining theory supported by logical and empirical evidence.

The 'theory' that "God did it" is also implausible, and raises further questions (as you showed with your post above about the nature of consciousness) too. But that's the point exactly.
Why, when it just isn't possible to explain everything regarding this issue with the scientific method, should we only accept the scientific method for trying to explain this? In simpler words, if something can't be explained rationally, why look for a rational solution?

Ofcourse, it's been a while since I made up my mind about this and I don't really know much about the multiverse theories. Could you explain them in some detail to me?

In any case, I will (until further notice) refrain from taking stance on the existance of a god. I do think the mainstream religions are wrong.
If there's only apples and oranges, I'll be the hybrid. Fine if you don't think agnosticism doesn't fit in between. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think there is a big difference between what can't be explained rationally and what hasn't been explained rationally. 

Sure there are questions about what was going on prior to the big bang, and what caused it; but those are just things we haven't explained because we haven't made the necessary observations yet, not things we can't possibly explain.

God is something that, if one is to accept it, must by definition be impossible to explain.  I reject that idea.  I love unanswered questions and saying that "everything that has not been explained is explained by God, which is impossible to explain" strikes me as a very apathetic way to approach the universe.

So, when you ask:

Why, when it just isn't possible to explain everything regarding this issue with the scientific method, should we only accept the scientific method for trying to explain this? In simpler words, if something can't be explained rationally, why look for a rational solution?

My answer is that I don't think there is anything that cannot be explained rationally, only things that haven't been; and I love those things and the people who dedicate their lives to explaining them rationally.

"Atheist" is the correct term for me, and I believe, many who call themselves agnostic out of an irrational desire to be precise or politically correct.

I am not theistic. I currently don't believe in a god. I don't worship anything. That could change, certainly. That doesn't change what I feel and believe now. It's part of who I am. I am an atheist.

I love my wife. I am in love with her. I don't want to be with anyone else. That could change, certainly. That doesn't change what I feel and believe now. It's part of who I am. I am in love.

To redefine what you believe because you may be persuaded at a later date with other evidence doesn't make sense to me. I'm an atheist. I love my wife. These are facts. Will they always be facts? I can't answer that question (although I'd bet what I've got that the answer would be yes to both).

To go down the road of "Well, I could change my mind some day, so I'm not a real atheist." or "Well, I could change my mind some day, so I'm not really in love." Is madness in my mind. Admit what you believe and feel and be done with it! Should that change at any point, deal with it then, honestly and with humility.

What you said makes great sense, except for one thing, viz: how can any of us know how we will feel at any time in the future? When one marries, one marries for life (have we ever vowed to love "until further notice"?). But things happen. One partner might change and the other one might not -- or might change in a different, incompatible way.

We might be atheists. But no one can know how we will feel on that subject years down the road -- or even tomorrow. This doesn't make us any less an atheist today.

My point is that we can only speak for NOW. Now I am this or now I am that. I can expect to remain this or that until my dying day, but we simply cannot know about tomorrow.

And that's probably good.

CRShelton wrote

I think there is a big difference between what can't be explained rationally and what hasn't been explained rationally.

I agree completely.

Sure there are questions about what was going on prior to the big bang, and what caused it; but those are just things we haven't explained because we haven't made the necessary observations yet, not things we can't possibly explain.

I don't think you completely understood my point. You can ask, what caused the big bang? Then, when we know that, we can ask "what caused the cause of the big bang?" Then, when we know that, we can ask "what caused the cause of the cause of the big bang?" etc.
It's an infinite regress all over again.

Why does matter exist in the first place?

God is something that, if one is to accept it, must by definition be impossible to explain. I reject that idea. I love unanswered questions and saying that "everything that has not been explained is explained by God, which is impossible to explain" strikes me as a very apathetic way to approach the universe.

I agree completely.

My answer is that I don't think there is anything that cannot be explained rationally, only things that haven't been; and I love those things and the people who dedicate their lives to explaining them rationally.

Well, that's the main point where we differ. I think science has come a long way and still has a long way to come, and it'll probably come to explain 99.99% of everything we know.

 It is true that it seems that you either have to accept something to be eternal, which caused the universe to be, or be left with infinite regression. Though for the sake of completeness, a third option must be mentioned: cyclical time, in which the end of the universe is also it's creation, and the events play out precicely the same from beginning to end to beginning to end again in an eternal causal loop with no origin and no true end. This may be said to be a variant of the "assuming something to exist eternally", except here that something doesn't cause the universe, it IS the universe. I don't find this very much better than the "god did it" option though.

Here's the point, which is why I see the mulitiverse models that don't include conscious first causes as plausible, and plausibly as intellectually satisfying as you can reasonably expect to get on this profound mystery, while the god "answer" I do not consider plausible at all:

For the multiverse models to work they need to assume very, very little to exist eternally - really not much more than what we observe on the quantum level with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. If we assume such underlying chaos of uncertainty to be the eternal thing that pervades all, then it seems that the multiverse may very well follow from that.

As Pailey put it in his design argument, if you find a rock on a heath, you don't need to wonder at it's structure and origin - for all you know, it might have always been. The rock doesn't have interacting parts and complex structure that would demand an explanation; a vast number of random arangements of parts would result in a rock just as adequate to bear the name. On the other hand, if you see a watch, that demands an explanation, because of it's intricate, purposeful complexity and function.

This applies to the competing cosmologies, in my view - the multiverse models need to assume the equivalent of the eternal rock, except more simple and unstructured still, while the "god did it" model needs to assume something unimaginably complex to pre-exist everything, and be eternal.

Occam's razor surely cuts the God-claim away, as an explanation, if the sheer implausibilities revealed when you examine the answer in more depth don't do the job.

I wrote a LOOOONG post in the open forum, comparing just one multiverse idea with the god-did-it idea, where I develop this argument in much more detail. If you have the patience to read, and are interested, have a look here: http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/the-origin-of-the-universe---god-vs-natural-processes

AlphaStar, I do understand your point.  I just have no problem accepting that there will always be another question that hasn't been answered.  In fact, I think it's the only rational expectation.

I think it's an irrational fear of the sysiphian nature of science that drives people to religion.  The need to have the whole universe explained with no leftover questions.

Just to make sure you understand my point, in response to your question "Why does matter exist in the first place?" I would say that we may never know, and it may not be possible to know with our current tools of observation, but I don't believe that it is unknowable.

I don't think we do differ much on our views, because I also agree that science has come a long way and has a long way to go.  I would say we will never understand 99.9% of our observable world, because as we develop the tools we need to find answers; we will always create as many, or more, new questions.

"I think it's an irrational fear of the sysiphian nature of science that drives people to religion.  The need to have the whole universe explained with no leftover questions."

On principle, I agree. It's obviously a generalization, but often correct. An astute observation.

You are right, Dahan.  That's a bigger generalization than I meant it to be.  I believe it's a fear that plays a strong part in many people's religious tendencies. 

Rab63 - I did not say that I don't know what the term means, and what the Buddhist claims about it are, but that I am sceptical as to whether it is a real phenomena.

Does it matter (whether it is a real phenomena) if it helps the person meditating to attain a feeling of inner peace and be more grounded?

I think it does matter in the sense of living one's life by the edicts of truth. Quite possibly on a personal level it doesn't matter, but I think as a general principle it is a bad idea to believe in something that isn't true merely because it has a better outcome.

I agree with EinsteinFan - there is inherent value to truth, I think.

And notice that my skepticism over the reality of the possibility of enlightenment doesn't stop me from practicing meditation, as there are demonstrable, more mundane (but valuable) benefits.

A related, interesting question is alternative medicine - very, very few alternative medicine practices have managed to prove efficacy beyond that of the placebo effect (the fact that you subjectively feel better and experience improvement - in things like pain that are self-reported and not objectively measurable - when you think you've received effective treatment, regardless of whether that treatment is in fact effective or not).

Is it moral and right to give a patient a placebo, and lie to them that it has true medicinal value?

It's a difficult issue, as the invasiveness and cost of the placebo treatment affect how effective it will seem to the patient.

So, for example, acupuncture involving sticking needles to a person leads to a stronger placebo effect, than giving the person a sugar pill and telling that it's powerful medicine. Both often work, to an extent, in improving the subjective experience of the patient (though neither treat underlying causes).

If the sugar pill costs a lot, and the patient is warned of side-effects, then the placebo effect will be stronger (and the patient may, in addition, experience the reported possible side-effects).

This is problematic, of course, as it seems immoral to sell someone a sugar pill for a substantial amount of money, under the pretense that it is appropriate medical intervention.

It's worse for placebo-based treatments that are invasive - even sticking needles to the skin of a person isn't without danger. Chiropractic, another invasive alternative practice, leads to a small percentage of patients experiencing anything from strokes to paralysis to death - this seems a high price to pay for a placebo effect. (Chiropractic CAN have actual effect when it is used in treatment of back problems specifically, but unfortunately it's claimed to be effective for many conditions that have nothing to do with the back - further, the same efficacy you can get from Chiropractic manipulation for back pain has been demonstrated in traditional physical therapy - and the latter lacks the dangerous possible side effects of Chiropractic.)

I CAN think of cases where I think using a placebo treatement would be justified - in the case of a complete lack of real medicine with demonstrated efficacy, if the condition of the patient produced significant discomfort. For example, in an undersuplied field hospital in a war situation, if the doctors run out of pain killer, I do think it is right for them to give the patients saline solution instead, and lie that it's some powerful drug, on humane grounds.

But generally, I do think that truth is valuable enough to be more desireable than a comforting lie.

About alternative medicine....... I happen to be a big believer in healthful foods. I'm laughed off the stage by "scientists" and any testimony I or others can give about healing effects of eating (or not eating) certain foods are disparagingly called "anecdotal evidence". I can write (and have written to many) about severe pains I had that disappeared with a change in diet. I've been told it was simply coincidence, that my story could never be accepted as any sort of "proof" because what I did would have to be done repeatedly under laboratory conditions in order to qualify as being curative.

But there is no money to be made in such stringent laboratory experiments. Who would sponsor such careful testing to show, for example, that pure water is good, wholesome fruit and vegetables are healing, and processed foods can be poisonous? The money is behind the big pharmaceutical companies, and they are there to push their products. So we get ever more sophisticated medicine for an ever sicker people.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with Agnostics v. Atheists. I am responding to a tiny phrase in Stegocephalian's post, which I found very insightful and with most of which I agree. Truth is very important, but it is very difficult to get to it. Laboratory tests do not prove everything, and their results can be twisted to show whatever the sponsor wants to "prove". 

 I agree with the sentiment you express Anda, but I am hesitant to accept the idea that, "Laboratory tests do not prove everything." We have no other valid way of proving something. It may be expensive, time consuming, and it risks placing one's beliefs up to scrutiny, but what is the other option? If we allow for mere anecdotal evidence nearly everything and anything can be held to be true. The system may have flaws, but the answer shouldn't be to do away with the scientific method.

Of course you're right, EinsteinFan. I just get discouraged because money controls so much in this country -- our legal drugs, our politics, our so-called "health" care, etc.

I'm not knocking serious laboratory work, and I'm certainly not saying their results are insignificant. I'm merely saying they don't prove everything.

Your remark about anecdotal evidence is certainly right; we CAN'T rely on that alone. But tell me truly: why do you think this country has so many sick, overweight, unhappy individuals? We are the richest country on the planet (or one of them -- I forgot about a certain few overseas), and yet we do NOT have as many healthy, sincerely happy people living here as one would expect. Science has so many answers, but have they helped? How many years has science worked on eliminating or curing cancer? Have we eliminated or cured it? Oh, sure, there are more cancer survivors than ever before. But there are also more new cancer cases. Science is working on a cure, not on prevention. That's what I find so discouraging.

I don't mean to knock science, honestly. But sometimes I think the learned people are so busy in their labs that simple common sense has flown out the window.

I know I'm in the wrong forum for all this rambling. Do forgive me. But it all has to do with truth, which as everything to do with everything.

Anda, testimonials cannot be viewed as evidence, for the reasons Einsteinfan mentioned - anecdotal evidence is only good for as a motivation to look at some claimed effect under proper double-blind study conditions.

This is because we humans are all too ready to jump to conclusions. I have a headache, I take a homeopathic preparation, my headache goes away - and after that I'm convinced that homeopathy works. (referring back to the "pigeon dance" phenomenon - once you get an idea in your head, it is inordinately difficult to dissmiss it, rather than rationalizing away future failures for the same effect to manifest itself)

In fact, of course, headaches tend to go away on their own, and further involve the kind of subjective experience of pain, that can be affected by the placebo effect.

So, to test whether it was the homeopathic preparation, or just the placebo effect + the passage of time, that healed the ache, a proper double blind study is necessary, where one group is given the homeopathic preparation, and the other a placebo, and told that it's the homeopathic preparation. Neither the doctor giving the medicine, nor the patient receiving it must know whether they are in the homeopatic, or the placebo group.

If the medicine does actually have an effect beyond the placebo effect, then you would expect the group who received the preparation to respond much better than the group that got the placebo.

Now you talk about healthy eating - and I see no reason to suspect that that doesn't have an effect on health! Nor do I doubt your word at having experienced improvements in pain reduction with a changed diet. But I cannot take this as evidence that your particular diet reduces pain, even in whatever condition it is that is causing the pain for you - this is because the placebo effect has not been ruled out. It's not derogatory, and not personal - it is just that people sincerely feel better after numerous different interventions, which, when tested under proper double blind conditions, turn out to be the placebo effect alone. People underestimate the strength of this effect, when it comes to things that can only be reported by the patient, not independently measured, like pain.

Still, eating healthy does have obvious health benefits, and I would not rule out an actual effect either, not out of hand.

The other thing I need to respond to you in that mail is what I see as very common thinking that leans towards the "conspiracy mode". Big pharma, big food producers, etc - I don't think that the criticism they get is entirely fair. To be sure, they are no angels, and don't do what they do out of the goodness of their heart, but I do not believe that any grand conspiracy is plausible, for the reasons I'll describe shortly.

But first, why are so many Americans overwheigth - I guess the reason is easier to see from the outside, because when I've visited the USA, what immediately strikes out is portion size!

The meals are HUGE! You don't need "processed food" to be somehow medically causing obesity, when you have portions that big - it's down to calories!

If you eat more calories than you burn, you accumulate fat. It's a simple equation, and it works whether you got those calories by eating a Big Mac, or a huge pile of bananas.

There's a recent psychological study I read about, which showed that people, when they evaluate how much they've eaten, don't intuitively take into consideration the portion size - our minds seem to count portions as units. So, if you eat a plateful at luch, it's counted as 1 plateful, whether that plate contains 300 grams of food, or 600 grams of food.

Add to the too large portion sizes the tendency to take the car everywhere, rather than walk, and the general lack of exercise, and you've got high calorie intake, and low calorie expenditure.

That equation comes to "increasing weight", no matter how you square it, and no matter how healthy or unhealthy the food that you ingest in those amounts is.

In this, and this alone, I DO see fast food industries as having to bear much of the blame - at fast food restaurants (even in Finland nowadays) - I've noticed the portions getting bigger, and they invariably use a subtle marketing tactic, that takes advantage of another of our psychological quirks: after you buy the meal, for, say, 7€, they'll offer to give you bigger fries, and a bigger drink for just 1€.

Now this looks to human psychology like a bargain - and we are tempted to take it. Yet if those very same people who took that bargain had been offered a bigger meal for 8€ to begin with, they would likely have opted for the smaller 7€ meal.

This marketing tactic leads to more calories consumed, while people intuitively fail to acknowledge that they've eaten more.

As for why I don't think "Big pharma" is conspiring to keep the cures to terrible conditions away from us, for the fear of losing their cash cow to sell only partially effective medicines, it's simple: game theory.

Competition and co-operation depend on trust, and on potential gains for co-operating and for defecting; and, of course, if the co-operation is illegal, the penalties for getting caught.

If someone did come up with "the cure for cancer" (I think that's a rather naive concept though, because cancer is a very complex thing, and not caused by just one thing, and it's very unlikely that there's a "magic bullet" to be had that would eliminate cancer),  then that discoverer, even if they somehow had managed to maintain a global conspiracy with ALL the other pharmaseutical companies in the wold, would be faced with a dillemma.

If they were to abide by the rules of the evil conspiracy to keep people sick, they'd have to scrap or burry the discovery. But what if they defected instead, and patented the cure? They'd have EXCLUSIVE rights to market the cure for cancer! The profits would be enormous, and they WOULDN'T be killing of their cash cow, because people will get cancer, and be in the need of the cure, for all perpetuity. Instead, they'd be ensuring their place as a market leader.

Now what if they abided by the rules of the conspiracy, and burried it instead? Then they'd be risking that someone ELSE came up with the same idea, and as scientific research tends to move in a steady front, if someone gets a novel idea, you can be sure that others will be following close behind. Now what if that someone isn't as co-operation minded as you are? In that case, THEY'D patent the cure, and completely blow you out of the water - what use would your only mildly effective medicine be, when there's a CURE on the market?

It simply is not feasible that a company would not come to the conclusion that the co-operation has outlived it's uses.

The second point is the same problem as with all conspiracies - human nature. The bigger the conspiracy, the more participants involved, the more likely it is to fail miserably due to whistle blowers and people who just can't keep from bragging, or making stupid, revealing mistakes.

Big farma are indeed in it for the money - and there's nothing wrong with that. Because researching potential new, safe and effective medicines is expensive, and risky business. Nobody would do it for free, or out of the kindness of their hearts - humans don't work like that.

I think one needs to be sceptical NOT only of big pharma, and other "big" things, but ALSO the very same standards, and skepticism, must be applied accross the board, fairly. Too often do I see alternative medicine supporters accept the claims of alternative medicine wholesale, without a shread of skepticism, and likewise reject "school medicine" wholesale, simply because it's produced "for profit" by big companies.

A combination of credulity on the other hand, and outright denial on the other, is not proper skepticism - skepticism is about setting standards of evidence with good reason, and then applying those standards to all claims, whether they come from bigh pharma, or the nice couple next door brewing their herbal preparations.

Great post. I'd just like to add: When dealing with a conspiracy theory (that you feel has some merit) I always find it good to consider the conditions in which it could be falsified.  I'm make one up for an example. I suggest the an elite cabal of midgets secretly rules the world for profit and to get revenge against the "big people".

Under what conditions could we falsify this? We could look at the median income of midgets vs. normal sized people and see if there is a major difference. This is where the conspiracy mind set takes over with the addition of another claim that the midgets have so much control over society that those records of income have been altered by the cabal. Any attempt to falsify the conspiracy leads to yet another claim. At the end you have to make claim after claim without the least shred of evidence to support them.

I suggest anytime you find yourself believing something like this (conspiracy or otherwise), you should seriously consider which is more likely: that this huge collection of totally unsupported claims is true, or that the belief might be in error.

edited typo

I don't know that Anda actually espoused any belief in the "Big Pharmaceutical" conspiracy theory you laid out quite well. She merely said that they haven't, with all of their enormous resources, fixed the problems she points to. This is a very different thing than believing that they are covering up the cures for something such as cancer. 

There are opponents of "Big Pharmaceuticals" whose reasoning does not fall under the category of a conspiracy theory. Many of the world's leading killers of the poor are not even on the list for what kills those who reside in wealthier countries.   http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

Look at TB, Malaria, and HIV/AIDS. None of these three things crack the top ten of what kills the wealthy. We have controlled them in our countries so they can be controlled for the poor, but "Big Pharmaceuticals", and admittedly public will in the rich countries, stand in the way.

I think the argument that holds up under scrutiny is that that for proper access to healthcare resources one must have access to large sums of money.

These companies spend insane amounts of money, not on research, but rather to influence policy so that they may continue to make even larger amounts of money. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-06-11-lobby_N.htm

The current system around the world keeps drug prices at exorbitant rates while at the same time only encouraging research on those drugs most likely to make large amounts of profits. I had heard recently that erectile dysfunction drugs were the most researched and well funded areas in pharmaceutical companies and this would not surprise me. Making a drug so that old Westerners can have sex is more profitable then allowing for shorter waiting periods so that generic versions of drugs can be produced.

This is the sentiment I believe Anda to be supporting when she criticises the health care industry as whole.

Stego, your take on the American weight problem is right on the mark of what the real issues are. Truly, gaining and losing weight, when one removes the psychological factors, is simply calories in versus calories out. You could eat a bucket of pig fat every day and lose weight as long as you burned off enough calories.

Einsteinfan - good post, I think you are right in your analysis.

And reading my post now, I see that I did not express it quite as I intended; I did not intend to imply that Anda was of this conspiracy mindset, but merely that there is this lurking threat of falling into this mindset for many people, especially when they talk of big pharma in connection with alternative medicine.

The problem you descirbe, I think, is very real - that research goes where the money is, which is common rich nation's diseases. Here's why, though I am, as the test in the other thread showed, a left leanign liberal, I'm not quite a libertarian; the free market does not solve all ills. If there's no money to be made in curing, say, malaria, then there will not be great resources poured into researching malaria - and finding truly effective cures is expensive.

I can't see a market-driven answer to this - there would, I think, be a need to subsidise the research into these non-profitable diseases by governments, or perhaps come to some international treaties regulating the pharmaseutical industry, effectively legislating that a predetermined portion of their profits must go into researching cures for conditions that aren't so lucrative.

But of course cancer IS as much a rich western problem as it is a problem elsewhere; probably more so for the fact that the average lifespan in the west is longer.

And in this cancer research, I really DO think that the problem is so intractably difficult, that I don't expect a revolutionary "cure" any time soon. The problem is that in cancer, it's the body's own cells that have gone renegade, and such cases are always more problematic than when there's a clear outside pathogen to fight.

AIDS research should receive more attention, but as it is not nearly as significant a problem in the rich west as it is in Africa, I wouldn't at all be surpriced if, in fact, erectile dysfunction was researched more. However, what I've read on HIV, it's a fiendishly difficult foe to beat, because it evolves new strains very fast, because of it's rather sloppy copying mechanisms. It's a moving target - you find a medicine that kills it, and within a very short time, it's lost it's effect, as mutant strains immune to it have cropped up and spread. I don't think that even if we were to swap the budgets for erectile dysfunction research and AIDS research, that a cure would be coming soon. There really are just some diseases which are that difficult.

Interestingly, and perhaps contributing to the fact that AIDS is less of a problem in Europe and North America, is that caucasians from Europe tend to have a significant portion of the population either immune or resistant to HIV. This surpriced me when I learned about it (from the quite excellent book "Evolution - the Triumph of an Idea" by Karl Zimmer, highly recommended.) The reason for this is that these European orginating populations have a mutant gene that, when inherited from both parents, causes the white blood cells to lack one surface structure, and it happens to be the structure that HIV uses to gain access to the cell. (Here's possibly something interesting to research, though I don't know how you'd go about removing that structure from white blood cells of a person who's not got this double-dose of mutant gene)

If you receive the mutant gene from only one parent, you can still get HIV, but it's progress is slowed by a few years. The reason why Europeans have this mutant gene in such numbers that, the highest percentages of immunity in Northern Europe are about 20% of the population, seems to be that the pathogen that caused the "black death" in Europe, that decimated populations, ALSO uses this same structure. The mutation is likely to have arrisen and spread during that time, and that is why so many Europeans - the descendants of the survivors - have it.