The single greatest misunderstanding of science and atheism ever!
There are, for example, experiments in Quantum Physics, such as the famous ‘dual slit’ experiment (you can see this in a YouTube video), which show electrons as appearing to be playing a spooky game of visual trickery with the experimenters, as if the electrons actually know when their behavior is being observed. As soon as the electrons ‘become aware’ they are being observed, they immediately change their behavior. There are other such mystic-like, magic-like occurrences now well-known and documented in Quantum Mechanics.Sphere: Related ContentSo this means that even when liberal rationalists appeal to empirical science to buttress their reliance on a so-called ‘tentative reason’ so as to give them some sense of security or certainty about such reason, science can only reply by saying, ‘You are looking at the wrong place to find certainty; we can only give you unpredictable probabilities concerning reality, mystic-magical types of findings, ‘Schrodinger’s cat’ who can be dead and alive at the same time, an object that can be at two different places at the same time, Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ where if you know where something is, you can’t know it’s speed and if you know its speed, you can’t know where it is, and other experimental findings that are akin to mysticism.’
Trackback URL
10 Comments:
“There are, for example, experiments in Quantum Physics, such as the famous “dual slit” experiment (you can see this in a YouTube video), which show electrons as appearing to be playing a spooky game of visual trickery with the experimenters, as if the electrons actually know when their behavior is being observed. As soon as the electrons “become aware” they are being observed, they immediately change their behavior. There are other such mystic-like, magic-like occurrences now well-known and documented in Quantum Mechanics.”
That isn’t how it works. They don’t “become aware”, they don’t change their behavior…
seriously, read some physic textbooks or try the experiment.
“So this means that even when liberal rationalists appeal to empirical science to buttress their reliance on a so-called “tentative reason” so as to give them some sense of security or certainty about such reason, science can only reply by saying, “You are looking at the wrong place to find certainty; we can only give you unpredictable probabilities concerning reality, mystic-magical types of findings, ‘Schrodinger’s cat’ who can be dead and alive at the same time, an object that can be at two different places at the same time, Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ where if you know where something is, you can’t know it’s speed and if you know its speed, you can’t know where it is, and other experimental findings that are akin to mysticism.””
You mean the universe at the bottom is a weird a wacky place? Surprise! Guess what- we don’t live in the microscopic realm!
Samuel Skinner
10:08 pm
I think someone is deeply confusing mysticism and metaphysics.
Siobhan the Not Very Evil
10:49 pm
Further, the fact that there is uncertainty in some situations does not mean that nothing is certain. And it definitely doesn’t mean rationality has fallen apart.
Further still, the fact that there is uncertainty does not in any way imply the existence of a supreme being. This is just another twist on the old “There are questions we don’t have answers to, so there must be a God that fills in the blanks”.
I will say this, while he knows nothing about quantum physics and little, if anything, about science, logic, and reason, he is certainly long-winded.
moleboy
10:53 pm
These are very similar arguments to those in the movie What the Bleep. Check this article for useful corrections about quantum physics. The people who understand quantum physics the best see the least reason for it to support mystical explanations.
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
elf_man
4:43 pm
I have to admit, being preached to by a warrior of Atlantis as channeled through a Tacoma housewife is pretty compelling stuff.
For some reaons I can not explain, I actually own the DVD but haven’t watched it (I’m wondering if I actually stole it…or, alternately, created it out of my own thoughts)
moleboy
4:57 pm
Is there an edit button?
BTW, I’m not assuming this post was made in support of the article. No idea either way.
Hm, this guy’s interpretation of Nietzsche is pretty suspect too. Nietzsche blasted the use of reason as leading to some ultimate truth, but did so based on it being a holdover from Christian belief and the conceptual criticism that belief in an absolute, in an ideal, takes us out of reality. He certainly doesn’t speak against trying to understand reality, such as it is. He mostly seems to support spirituality in so much as it is useful in metaphor for glorifying life as it is, with meaning created not in opposition to the physical world, but along with it. As with much of Zen, the idea of a god, or some sort of metaphysics, isn’t necessary in a literal sense.
elf_man
4:58 pm
I most certainly am NOT supporting the article. The writer showed little concern for things like facts or logic, so…
I don’t know much about Nietzsche, and so I tend not to write about him. Alas, our prolific friend doesn’t feel the same way.
I like the fact that you mentioned that god doesn’t have to be literal. Its something i agree with strongly. I don’t think we can out-of-hand dismiss religion as being poppy-cock. And so god could be interpreted as part of a quest to udnerstand ourselves.
Or not.
moleboy
5:03 pm
I figured as much, but it was quoted without any explanation. No offense meant.
It’s interesting, in The Antichrist, Nietzsche has a section criticizing Buddhism. But it’s very much based on a more metaphysical interpretation (really, the common view at the time) of escaping reality, of pacifying the body so as to minimize physical passions. Basically he was trying to refute Schopenhauer (another mistake in the article, Nietzsche grew to hate Schopenhauer’s views) who liked Buddhism for those reasons. He thought that life was completely suffering and that the only solace was temporary escape, and so preached an ascetic, meditative lifestyle. Whereas a lot of Nietzsche’s own points seem to work well with Zen, as previously noted, in terms of confronting and embracing reality, however hard it might be. There are other bits that aren’t necessarily compatible, but even so.
For me, every argument I’ve seen for something called God in Zen could be considered atheistic as well, it’s really six of one, half a dozen of the other. It always seems completely irrelevant in Zen. Usually strikes me as defensive as much as anything, in the “see, we aren’t atheists” sense.
elf_man
5:21 pm
None taken
Zen has a tendency to describe itself (and, often, just about anything else) by what it is not (due to linguistic issues). So the “we ain’t atheists” thing might not be defensive.
Or, alternately, they might not want to get burned at the stake (metaphorically or literally, depending on time and place…)
moleboy
5:28 pm
It’s the “not get burned at the stake” thing that I meant, it just depends on who’s doing the arguing. A lot of times, it seems tacked on, like “oh and just in case…” when it seems like the arguments could go either way. Even the ones that aren’t defensive seem to come down to “It’s the universe, but we call it god” kind of thing. Great, feel like the universe loves you, but they all seem to realize that’s also their interpretation, at which point, why? Eh, you can probably see what I mean. It goes either way.
elf_man
5:47 pm