THE ATHEIST
The newsletter of the Atheist Society (Australia)
Vol 1 No. 3, June, 1993
Editorial
The God of Christianity is only one of many false Gods. Serious atheists do not believe in any of them, and that includes the God of Science. Yes, Science too is an imagined God, and has grown far beyond the meagre, yet extremely useful realities it can rightfully lay claim to. Science is certainly capable of more . . . if only it will broaden its terms of reference to encompass Nature, instead of twaddling around with miniscule trivia as it does.
Indeed, the difference between Science and the study of Nature is truly infinite. The reason being that everything about Nature is infinite while everything about Science is finite. The problems start when foolish scientists (and which of them is not foolish?) try to make "infinite" fit into a scientific formula. For want of a more extreme expression this is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole - an infinitely large square peg into a very small round hole - which always makes the formula useless. Vainly taking the failure of their scientific formulas as a threat to their lives and livelihood, scientists have manifestly turned their backs on Nature, on the infinite, and on all that is true and great. This edition strives to put Science in perspective, in the hope that atheism will inspire the practice of a more noble form of Science.
|
The object of modern science is to make all aspects by immersing yourself in it.
|
Can Science be an adequate substitute for religion?
Yes, of course. There is no real conflict between science and religion. Both are fundamentally alike in that they have nothing whatsoever to do with ultimate truth. No matter how much they pretend otherwise, the ultimate reality of everything, that is the infinite, has as much to do with their tiny concepts (eg "God", "Law of Nature" etc) as does the vast Pacific Ocean to do with a tub of yoghurt in the fridge.
You see, it must be emphasized that science and religion were never designed to be concerned with ultimate truth. On the contrary, they have always been elaborate fictions created for the purpose of satisfying egotistical desire. Each excels in the art of manipulating Nature for the all-too-cunning aim of securing physical and emotional benefits. One example alone is sufficient to illustrate how science is nothing less than ultimate myth. Cosmologists proclaim that they are on to something BIG - that is, THE ORIGIN. Now, if cosmology is to replace philosophy, as it thoughtlessly claims to do, then its purpose should be to uncover the origin of Nature - that is, of utterly everything - and not just of this tiny bubble of a universe we happen to be located in. Yet the moment this is attempted they fall into eternal absurdity, for it is simply not possible for THE ORIGIN to exist.
From my observations, I can only conclude that scientists do all they can to avoid the glaring fact that the whole subject is by nature scientifically incomprehensible . . . There are two basic scenarios confronting the scientific mind: 1. Nature stretching endlessly back into its past, and 2. Nature spontaneously popping into existence out of nothing whatsoever. No other scenarios are possible: Nature is either beginningless or not. Both are completely inexplicable as far as science is concerned, and will continue to be so forever more.
Thus, in one pure stroke of reason, the whole science of cosmology is discredited.
It has to be seen that the scientific quest to understand the ORIGIN is inherently self-defeating. Science needs a "starting point" upon which to formulate their GREAT EXPLANATION; a universe going back forever will never be captured by formulas and equations and the like. Yet a starting point is, by its very definition, none other than the point at which Nature pops into existence completely uncaused. Since the very basis of all scientific explanation is the notion of cause and effect, a starting point is by necessity completely inexplicable. So you see, in order to understand the origin of Nature, Science depends on something it cannot comprehend.
The scientists themselves half-understand this dilemma: they invent all sorts of nonsensical concepts like "imaginary time" and "beginningless beginnings" in the hope that the problem will somehow go away. Neither can religion offer any help here, and for the ame reasons. You see, the concept of God is completely irrelevant to the origin of Nature. A God, if it were to exist, would necessarily be a part of Nature (because Nature is defined as "utterly everything") and thus can play no role whatever in resolving the problem of THE ORIGIN. It is almost degrading for me to write these thoughts because it tends to imply that science and religion possess a degree of philosophic credibility, which they certainly do not have. No, happiness is their game, and the philosophic concept is just one of the many means to this end. Science and religion remind me of two whorehouses trying to outbid each other in their search for customers. They lure the customer in and provide him with every possible happiness. All he has to do is lie.
David Quinn
|
Science seeks generally only the most useful systems of classification:
|
Bits of Nietzsche
- On Scholars -
They are clever, they have cunning fingers; what hath my simplicity to do with their multiplicity?
Their fingers know well how to thread and knit and weave: thus they knit stockings of the mind!
They work like millstones, and corn crushers - if grain be thrown into them! They know but too well how to grind corn and make white dust thereof.
They watch one another well, and trust not one another over- much. Ingenious in petty strategems, they lie in wait for those whose knowledge goeth on lame feet; like spiders they wait.
They know, moreover how to play with loaded dice. We are as strangers to one another, and their virtues are yet more repugnant to me than their falsehoods and loaded dice.
They love not to hear that any goeth over their heads. Therefore they have laid wood and earth and refuse betwixt me and their heads.
Thus have they deadened the sound of my footsteps; and hitherto the most learned have heard me least.
For men are not equal: so speaketh justice. And that which I will, they cannot will!
- Beware of scholars! They hate you; for they are sterile! They have cold, dried-up eyes, and in their sight every bird lieth plucked. Such men boast that they lie not: but impotence for lying is far other than love of truth. Beware!
Freedom from fevers delusions is far other than knowledge! I credit naught from frozen minds. He that cannot lie, knoweth not what is truth.
Of "cultured men"
"We are altogether real and without beliefs or superstitions." Thus ye puff yourselves up. But how could ye believe, ye motley ones - ye that are compound pictures of all that hath ever been believed.
A Comedy of Errors
Consider the following:
1. Sub-atomic particles come into existence completely uncaused.
2. The observer is necessary for a particle's existence.
Believe it or not, these are two basic tenets of modern quantum theory. That they contradict one another is ignored by all who preach the "new physics". Can we really take scientists seriously if they believe that an observer is a necessary cause of an uncaused particle?
Contradictions of this sort are rampant in all science. Indeed, it seems an immutable law that progress in science is dependent upon philosophical backwardness. At the very least, their philosophical spokespeople are imbeciles.
To illustrate this important point, let us look closer at the quantum physicist. Determinism is dead, he says in essence, because subatomic particles keep deviating strangely from predictable paths (e.g, individual particles cannot be accurately followed, various properties cannot always be predicted with certainty, etc, etc) Unfortunately, however much the physicist wants to evade it, the fact remains that however strange the sub-atomic realm might be, it can never provide proof nor even evidence that particles arise uncaused. This is simply because things can be inherently unpredictable and yet still be caused. On the other hand, a completely uncaused event is by necessity a completely unpredictable event. Thus, it follows that if sub-atomic events really occur without cause, then no mathematical tool whatsoever would be able to make meaningful predictions concerning them. Yes, even the "very effective" equations of quantum physics would be useless.
It does not matter if scientific experiments have revealed that on the smallest scale individual particles display random and unpredicatable patterns of behaviour. Quantum theory is able to make meaningful predictions about these very same particles, albeit statistical predictions concerning large numbers of them. This would be impossible if the particles and their behaviour were uncaused. Besides, although individual particles display random, unpredictable movements, the whole method of scientifically observing them is based on the prediction that the said particles will be there to observe, and not, say, armchairs or elephants. In other words, the very fact that the same old particles keep arising, complete with the same old recognizable properties, proves that these particles cannot be uncaused. Non-causality is non- discriminatory, and it has the entire infinite range of possible forms for it to randomly choose from.
Now, what of the modern physicist who believes in uncaused particles? How does he spend his time? It is staggering but true: this self- same scientist devotes his entire life to refining the very effective and predictive powers of quantum physics!
Enormously humorous though this is, it doesn't stop here. Not content with half-measures, the physicist aims to push his comic madness to rarified heights. How does he attempt to persuade us of the existence of uncaused particles? By stressing the effectiveness of quantum physics. Magnificent!
David Quinn
|
Science is 10,000 years behind philosophy; What do you mean there are not enough women in Science Selection pressure in Science: survival of the witless.
|
Bathroom Activities
The goal of science and religion is not to understand the nature of ultimate reality. Their basic pleasure, rather, is to transform Nature into a gigantic soap opera. It is the delight of children to envelope themselves in warm bedtime stories.
The scientific view of Nature's history may have a bit more plausibility than the religious ones, yet is identical in that its purpose is to invent useful descriptions of what causes what. This is infinitely removed from the goal of philosophy, which is to understand the nature of cause and effect itself.
Cause and effect is the underlying principle of Nature. All things come into existence and disappear again in accordance with the dictates of the eternal process. Even the most exotic of scientific processes and the most elevated of divine activities (assuming they exist) are composed of plain old cause and effect. Take physics, for example. One of its stated goals is the discovery of "fundamental laws" which govern all of Nature's processes. This, they naively assert, would be the ultimate knowledge - "The mind of God" they brag.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Suppose these laws really exist (ie, outside our minds), then they would either be in a causal relationship to the rest of Nature or not. If not, then they would not be able to fulfil their function, namely to cause changes. On the other hand, if they do exist in causal relationship, then one immediately sees that the concept of cause and effect is more fundamental than the concepts of "law" or "matter". Or, for that matter, "God" or "Intelligence". Thus the gods of science and religion are refuted on the grounds of irrelevancy. As far as ultimate reality is concerned, science and religion masturbate distractedly.
It is this realization which forms the first faint patches of light heralding the bright new dawn of atheism.
David Quinn
So close . . . but so far
Philosophers and theologians have a remarkable command of the English language. They can articulate on subjects of extreme complexity and difficulty with ease. Yet this is hardly surprising, given the degree to which they have devoted their lives to the enterprise. Indeed they need to devote their lives without reserve if they are to avoid a confrontation with the absolute.
Their rationality has placed them in the proximity of truth; now they do all they can to avoid it by taking their knowledge to an extreme. They become experts at hedging around the truth and procrastination. They cannot see the forest for the trees; but this is exactly the way they want it - so they have taken it upon themselves to plant countless trees, trees with all manner of impressive and difficult names - as a safeguard. You see, proximity to truth is not to be confused with closeness, for if you are even a hairsbreadth away, you are a million miles.
It is as though these scholars journeyed to the end of the earth, and on encountering the Void, a barrier they cannot pass, they decided to set up camp. Shortly, the camps became many, and eventually grew into vast and complex cities. Consequently these scholars are experts on the small patch of terrain, there at the end of the earth, but have never ventured beyond it - into the Infinite.
If they meet a true man of the Void, they speak enthusiastically to him of their world and lives, but he finds it difficult to follow their speech, for he only glanced their world in passing.
Kevin Solway
QUANTUM PHYSICS
- A PROBLEM CHILD -
A few decades ago, pregnant by the seed of reductionism, Science gave birth to a strapping young theory - a baby they called "Quantum Physics". Those present at the happy event rejoiced; theologians, theosophists of the New Age and priestly scientists alike. But sadly, wisdom was not invited. 'Twas a handsome babe, full of the promise of understanding and the hope of a better world. What excited anticipation lingered in the air! But, just as children in this world are often corrupted by the adults who seek influence over them, so has Quantum Physics been corrupted by the self-seeking, self-ordained "Godparents" present at its birth. Now it's the rational among us who seek deliverance from what this innocent child has become. Now it's the insightful few who see this child as the grotesque nursery into which it has grown - an arrogant and cunning youth which proclaims itself to be the oracle for ultimate principles. It says: "Feed me with your desires, your fears, and I'll keep your imaginings safe within my mystery! Worship me and I'll give you Chaos, Spontaneity, Randomness, Uncertainty - I'll return your beliefs to you tenfold!" Thus I give you the Devil's puberty.
Well versed, is this Teenager from Hell, in the art of legerdemain, conjuring all manner of phenomena from its vast sleeves of ignorance, making great impressions upon the gullible and credulous. "This is magic!" they gasp, "how does he do it? We cannot see the cause, and he claims there is none, surely then spontaneity is real, surely things do happen without cause, truly there is magic - what a relief!"
But, just as a Magician never reveals the secrets of his tricks, nor do the physicists, for to do so would surely spoil the fun. So the Mendacious Merlin invites you to check his sleeves, his pockets, every part of his body; he asks: "What have you found? What is the cause of this trick and that trick?" How he loves to confound. But I tell you, you may search him for a thousand years and never find the cause of a single one of his tricks, all the while missing the obvious, the logical. Does not a magical trick require a magician? Can a trick exist of itself? Is not the Magician the cause of the magic? Indeed, can there be a magician without tricks? Understand this one point, and a thousand others will accordingly grow clear; misunderstand that one and ten thousand delusions will encompass you. All things are caused, for there must be something which is not that thing to give it meaning; to denote it as a thing; to be conscious of it, that is, to give it its existence.
Physicists never speak of "causes" in this way, for this would give the game away! Never let it be said however that scientists are foolish, for it requires enormous mental dexterity to feign such ignorance.
Dan Rowden
Back to The Thinking Man's Minefield main page
ksolway@theabsolute.net