Discussing athiesm today, how do I address this?

[Nichomacheo]

As is normal for me, I sparked a discussion about religion at work today. Usually, theist's arguments are weak and easy to address. Today it veered off in a different direction, and I was completely confused as to how to respond to it.

My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter. Mathematics is the underlying language of the universe, and it makes things beautiful." Then he says, mathematics is only a human invention. Numbers do not exist without humans and that numbers are only our way of interpreting the universe. I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

I had no idea what to say. The people listening looked at me like I had lost the argument. How do I respond? And, what's a better answer for the "how is there so much beauty in the world" question?

[Nielsio]

You have to pin them on the knowledge argument.

Evolution is a way of understanding and describing change in the universe.

'goddidit' is not.

If at any time they are using god-talk, you should ask them to define what they mean. You have to put them up to scientific standards. If they don't do that then they are not interested in understanding reality.


More here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...F546E2613114CB
(esp the first two)

[BuddyQ]

[ QUOTE ]
As is normal for me, I sparked a discussion about religion at work today. Usually, theist's arguments are weak and easy to address. Today it veered off in a different direction, and I was completely confused as to how to respond to it.

My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" I reply, "The beauty that you see is merely the result of the interaction of mathematics and matter. Mathematics is the underlying language of the universe, and it makes things beautiful." Then he says, mathematics is only a human invention. Numbers do not exist without humans and that numbers are only our way of interpreting the universe. I asked him if 1+1=2 without us, and he says that the concept of "1" doesn't exist without us.

I had no idea what to say. The people listening looked at me like I had lost the argument. How do I respond? And, what's a better answer for the "how is there so much beauty in the world" question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Coco the talking gorilla knows what 'one' means. I could be wrong though.

[Nielsio]

Oh, and btw, logic exists independent of humans. Logic is something that can be discovered.

[tame_deuces]

Well, he is right - mathematics is not the underlying language of the universe. It is a beautiful science full of elegance which can be applied on top of an incredible array of explanatory models and all kudos to it - but it is no more the 'language' of the universe than swahili is. The normal numerical system (ok, there are more than that but bear with me) has a base of ten because humans have ten fingers, not vice versa.

And beauty is as the old saying goes, in the eye of the beholder. You don't need god to explain beauty - only humans and our perception/brains/bodies.

[Nichomacheo]

Nielsio, I'll be watching those videos momentarily.

[ QUOTE ]
but [mathematics] is no more the 'language' of the universe than swahili is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can say this. Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
And beauty is as the old saying goes, in the eye of the beholder.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may have been talking about beautiful like a rainbow is beautiful, but I was talking about beautiful as in how the Fibonacci sequences is beautiful, or how the complexity of the world is governed by simpler laws of nature.

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
My co-worker's question began as a simple "Where did the universe come from?" to which I responded, I don't know, no one knows for sure, but just because no one can answer it with certainty, it doesn't justify a divine creator. He then asks, "Well, with so much beauty and complexity in the world, are you saying that that came from nothing?" "yes, are you saying that it came from a magic man in the sky?"

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't understand his logic trail. the concept of 1 is not only a human concept, anything could come along and have a concept of it, and what does it matter if its a human invention anyway.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how you can say this. Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be more correct to say that you put those interaction into a mathematical model by abstraction and then treating them in some manner that gives a usable output.

It isn't too different from putting them into language and talking about them, except mathematics is more 'solid' and based on much, much purer logic. Mathematics per se doesn't exist beyond our idea of numbers as a measure of things we see/observe/theorize.

[Nichomacheo]

[ QUOTE ]

i don't understand his logic trail. the concept of 1 is not only a human concept, anything could come along and have a concept of it, and what does it matter if its a human invention anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that I "believe 1+1=2" just as he "believes in God". I say that doesn't make sense, of course 1+1=2 without us. No, he says. In his mind, if math is our creation, its not a valid basis for my argument. So, it was up to me to explain to him why math exists independent of us.

Nielsio,

I watched your first video. I enjoyed it a lot and it gave me some things to think about. I especially liked "If I tell you x is true, but don't tell you what x is, we're in the field of religion." I never thought about demanding that a theist define the terms they are using. I doubt many can. "[These words] mean nothing at all." Good quote.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't mathematics govern every interaction in the universe?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathematics describes every interaction in the universe. It governs nothing. Human mathematics is just our way of representing relationships. There's a difference between a pattern and our conception of a pattern.

Of course, it's rational to accept that the patterns we observe in nature are "real" patterns, that they represent some kind of underlying reality, but what that reality "is" we will never know.

In terms of the theist and his argument, it's something of a red herring. After all, he never explained why beauty in the world implies the existence of any sort of supernatural being. Even if it did, he would have a long way to go in order to establish that being as the God he believes in. He's relying on an appeal to emotion combined with fuzzy terminology and assumptions.

We see the universe as beautiful - does that mean it "is" beautiful? We see the natural world as beautiful, but that's the world in which the human species evolved - if we have the capacity to sense beauty, of course we're going to sense it in our natural environment. Simple rules can result in complex and intricate systems - look at emergence, or fractals. Creation doesn't imply theism at all. Even an inherent meaning in the universe doesn't imply theism. And theism doesn't imply any specific religion. Much of the universe is barren and empty - only a tiny part of it is "beautiful" in the traditional sense. Humans can create order out of randomness, and beauty out of chaos, in their own minds. We know only a very tiny bit about how our universe works and even how big it is - we aren't justified in suggesting any conclusions about its ultimate nature. If the universe is "too beautiful not to have been created," then is God ugly? If God is also beautiful, then he must have been created too - assuming that beauty must, indeed, be created.

And so on. You can adapt refutations of similarly spurious arguments, attack the absence of logic directly, or offer alternative explanations. Just don't let him get you on the defensive - his argument doesn't affect your position at all, you can shrug it off if need be. Treat his words as what they are, empty rhetoric, and don't take it upon yourself to answer the questions of the universe - he's the one who claims to have all the answers, you can say "I don't know" all you please without undermining your position.