Agnosticism & other positions

Depending on the definitions of "god (G)" preferred by different theists, I could be labeled differently by different individuals. To understand how this may work check out other posts (Part 1, Part 3) in the series.

Consider the proposition: P = G exists.

Theism

If you think P is true, then you have a belief in god. You believe that G exists. If you do not have evidence for this belief then it's a non-contingent belief aka faith. You are a Theist. Degrees of confidence for this belief is based on psychological certainty which may differ for different religious individuals.

Agnosticism

If you do not know whether P is true or false, if you don't claim to have knowledge about the existence of G, then you're an Agnostic. Agnosticism is about knowledge claim. It means "without knowledge". Now you may have a stance regarding this proposition P or not have any stance on either side after all. Which gives us the following types:

• Agnostic Theist: An agnostic who is also a theist. Someone who has a belief in G but does not claim to have knowledge of its existence.

• Agnostic Atheist: Someone who is Agnostic and also an Atheist.

A general discussion on Belief

We need to have ideas of some basic terms before we can discuss atheism. I have given a structural definition with the set analogy. I also proposed a definition of knowledge (100% epistemic certainty) and confidence (< 100% either epistemic or psychological or both) using probability here.

What's belief?

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual accepts a proposition or statement to be either true or false. Any particular mental state of a thinking mind has a belief set i.e. A set of beliefs. Consider the set
B= {a, b, c}
Here the Belief set B has some members where,
a = the truth value of the statement a where A person has the belief that a is true or false. Similarly, b = truth value of the statement b where A person has the belief that b is either true or false and so on.

There are some beliefs which are contingent (depends upon evidence) and some beliefs which are non-contingent type. These beliefs are all subsets of the belief set B.
You could have an empty set B ={ } when you lack belief. You lack belief about statement a and statement b which were given in regard to something or someone.

Cosmological Criticism: Part 2

This post is part of a sequence on Cosmological Argument.

The Universe began to exit is the 2nd premise of KCA. Since the Big Bang theory is NOT a theory of the origin of Universe^[2a], it no longer holds much importance in Cosmological argument. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig argues that The Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem^[2b] acts as a empirical scientific evidence to establish the truth of this premise.

Victor J. Stenger in his most recent book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning^[2c] :

The conclusion that Borde and collaborators had proved that the universe had to have a beginning was disputed the same year by University of California-Santa Cruz physicist Anthony Aguirre and Cambridge astronomer Steven Gratton in a paper that Craig ignores. Being good scholars, Borde et al. refer to Aguirre and Gratton in their own paper. I contacted Aguirre and Vilenkin, the latter whom I have known professionally for many years. I greatly admire the work of each, which will be referred to often on these pages. I first asked Vilenkin if Craig's statement is accurate. Vilenkin replied:

"I would say this is basically correct, except the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags. The theorem says that if the universe is everywhere expanding (on average), then the histories of most particles cannot be extended to the infinite past. In other words, if we follow the trajectory of some particle to the past, we inevitably come to a point where the assumption of the theorem breaks down—that is, where the universe is no longer expanding.
This is true for all particles, except perhaps a set of measure zero. In other words, there may be some (infinitely rare) particles whose histories are infinitely long."

I then asked Vilenkin, “Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?”

He immediately replied,
"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."

Vilenkin further explained, "For example, Anthony in his work with Gratton, and Carroll and Chen, proposed that the universe could be contracting before it started expanding. The boundary then corresponds to the moment (that Anthony referred to as t = 0) between the contraction and expansion phases, when the universe was momentarily static. They postulated in addition that the arrow of time in the contracting part of space-time runs in the opposite way, so that entropy grows in both time directions from t=0."

I also checked with Caltech cosmologist Sean Carroll, whose recent book From Eternity to Here provides an excellent discussion of many of the problems associated with early universe cosmology. Here was his response:

"I think my answer would be fairly concise: no result derived on the basis of classical spacetime can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity. The BGV [Borde, Guth, Vilenkin] singularity theorem is certainly interesting and important, because it helps us understand where classical GR breaks down, but it doesn't help us decide what to do when it breaks down. Surely there's no need to throw up our hands and declare that this puzzle can't be resolved within a materialist framework. Invoking God to fill this particular gap is just as premature and unwarranted as all the other gaps.

William Craig frequently quotes Vilenkin in his arguments although Vilenkin dismissed^[2d] the existence of God as a cause of the begining of the Universe. But most recently in 11 january, 2012 in the New Scientist magazine^[2e], Vilenkin argued for a begining of the Universe.

Alan Guth in his Cosmic Inflation paper^[2f] wrote,

There is, of course, no conclusion that an eternally inflating model must have a unique beginning, and no conclusion that there is an upper bound on the length of all backwards-going geodesics from a given point. There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton (2002, 2003)have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe “expands” in both halves of the full de Sitter space.

See Bibliography.

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God and my criticism of it — a Sequence.

→ Introduction

→ Part 1

→ Part 2

→ Part 3

→ Part 4

→ ....

→ Bibliography

Cosmological Criticism: Part 1

This is part of the sequence on Cosmological Argument.

The first premise of William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological argument is

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

There are other versions of this premise. It can also be said like this: "Every thing that begins to exist has a cause".

1. Fallacy of Equivocation: Craig says this premise is justified through "common sense", "everyday experience" and which is "intuitively obvious". But we don't see anything begin to exist "ex nihilo". We see things begin to exist "ex materia". In other words, things change one form to another. Comparing the begining of Universe's existence ex nihilo (presumably) with begining of things' existence ex materia is a fallacy of equivocation.

2. Begging the question: The premise implies two sets of things. Things that begin to exist (BE) and things that don't begin to exist i.e. eternal (NBE). If god is the only object allowed in NBE then the premise becomes "Every thing except god has a begining & cause of its existence". If the conclusion of the argument is "Universe has an eternal, uncaused cause" then presupposing god as the only necessary candidate makes the argument question begging. In order to avoid begging the question, theist must produce one or more real or hypothetical candidates other than god for NBE. For example: pre-big bang universe, quantum mechanical field, branes, aliens etc and then logically exclude them.

3. Causal Determinism is correct: The premise assumes causal determinism is absolutely correct in all aspects of (classical, relativistic, quantum) physics. If theists assume, the exact (non-probabilistic) cause for when and why a single unstable nucleus becomes stable (radioactive decay) will be eventually verified through empirical scientific observation, then what prevents atheists to assume science will eventually find the exact naturalistic cause of the origin of Universe?

The premise could also be worded like this "Every finite and contingent or dependent thing have a cause". This is a modal version of the premise which says, All contingent thing have a cause or explanation of their existence.

4. Causality and Time: If time is finite and contingent then it has a cause of its existence. But causality doesn't apply in any way when there is no time.

5. Quantum Mechanics: Vacuum fluctuation i.e. formation of particle anti-particle pair in a quantum mechanical field is a quantum phenomenon which is finite and (if) contingent, has no cause. The phenomenon has been observed in Casimir effect. Although Bell's inequalities show local hidden variables don't exist, under Bohmian mechanics (causal deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics) non-local hidden variable (which requires faster than light interaction) still is an unproved hypothesis at best.

6. Problem of Induction: Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not apply to the Universe at large. The premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning which is dependent on experience. Hume argued causal relations are not a true deductive a priori.

See Bibliography

What is being Intelligent?

A quote from Daniel Dennett comes to my mind.

I listen to all these complaints about rudeness and intemperateness, and the opinion that I come to is that there is no polite way of asking somebody: have you considered the possibility that your entire life has been devoted to a delusion? But that's a good question to ask. Of course we should ask that question and of course it's going to offend people.

The first thing about intelligence is skepticism. Being intelligent is not to know everything but to question everything. I wasn't an atheist before, but I always was & still is, a skeptic.

I've noticed people with rigid views tend to get offended more when questioned. Particularly when they have little evidence to support their claim. Blasphemy law is a good example of expected reaction to established rigid religious views where the "rudeness" of merely questioning the doctrine is a punishable crime.

Inequality & Unhappiness

Human beings generally tend to accept the rich if they earned it in a just way. Problem starts when injustice sets in. If rich people earn a lot of money relatively conveniently and/or unjustly, then poors want to end that system of injustice.

Recent studies show this behaviour in other primates too. Does Inequality Make Us Unhappy? - is a thought provoking read.

On a side note, I remember one type of theistic argument on morality is that, the system of justice is independent of human society which has a divine origin. I think this article with the help of scientific studies on monkey behaviour, proves that our sense of justice has evolved from lower animals. In other words, lower animals also have this sense of moral justice and equality.

I always wonder, why can't the theists realise that the holy books written by these ancient goat herders always reflect the morality of their own societies?

The philosophy of Matrix

I have been reading this amazing philosophy paper which describes the The Matrix as Metaphysics. You can click on the author's name and read his other articles too.

A logical argument against a conscious first cause

1. The First Cause is that which caused Time.
2. Consciousness is that which lets one make a decision which is the action of changing ones thought from undecided to decided.
3. Time is the measure of change.
4. Something which is caused can't be required by that which causes it.
5. A Decision is a Change (from 2)
6. Time is required for Change (from 3)
7. Decisions require Time. (from 5 & 6)
8. Consciousness can't let one make a decision without Time. (from 2 & 7)
9. Consciousness requires Time (from 8)
10. Therefore first cause is not a Conscious cause. (from 1, 4 & 9)

Evidence for Metaphysical Naturalism

Some evidence for Metaphysical Naturalism

Jeffery Jay Lowder

Here I want to give two lines of empirical evidence which I think support metaphysical naturalism. Although I believe there are additional facts which support naturalism, space limitations require that I limit myself to just two lines of evidence. I shall attempt to argue that these two facts are much more likely on naturalism than theism.

A. Naturalism makes sense of the physical nature of minds.

As Paul Draper, an agnostic philosopher at Florida International University, puts it,

"Consciousness and personality are highly dependent on the brain. Nothing mental happens without something physical happening."

Now Michael Tooley, a philosopher at the University of Colorado, has stated five lines of evidence in support of this claim. Let me summarize just briefly that evidence.

1st, when an individuals brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience.

2nd, certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all.

3rd, other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged.

4th, when we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex.

5th, within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain.

Thus, the conclusion that, "Nothing mental happens without something physical happening," seems inescapable.

But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that strongly implies that the mind cannot exist independently of physical arrangements of matter. In other words, we do not have a soul. And this is exactly what we would expect if naturalism is true. But if theism is true, then our minds should not depend on our brains for their existence; we should have souls. Also, if theism is true, then God is a disembodied mind; Gods mind is not in any sense dependent on physical arrangements of matter. But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that is evidence against both the existence of souls and the existence of any being who is supposed to have a disembodied mind, including God. Therefore,the physical nature of minds is unlikely if theism is true, but what we would expect if naturalism is true.

B. Naturalism makes sense of the pointless evil and suffering in the world .

Have you ever wondered why there is so much evil and suffering in the world? In addition to evils committed by human beings, there is much agony and pain caused by solely natural processes, including earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and viruses.

Now, this tends to be pretty embarrassing for the theist. If theism is true, we have to believe that God allows people to suffer horrible pain that any decent person would themselves prevent. But that's hard to believe. If there is a God, He is more than just a decent person; He is the very standard of decency itself. So why doesn't he just eliminate evils like the one I just described? Even after thousands of years of theological reflection, theistic philosophers still have no idea. They just assume that there must be a reason for God allowing evil.

For example, Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University, one of the most influential theistic philosophers of our time, admitted, "Many of the attempts to explain why God permits evil seem to me shallow, tepid, and ultimately frivolous."

Naturalists, on the other hand, have a plausible explanation for pointless suffering: there is no all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing being to intervene and prevent pointless suffering. Therefore, pointless suffering is much more likely on naturalism than on theism.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

There are many versions of KCA. Most common is this one:

1. Everything that begins to exist have a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, Universe has a cause.

Funny thing is that, it doesn't establish any specific cause of the Universe. It doesn't argue for any god.
We can take it a bit further...

1. God is the uncaused cause of the Universe.
2. Therefore god didn't begin to exist.

(a)
From postulate (a) we conclude that either god doesn't exist or always existed. So, basically the argument proves nothing at all!