| Home |
| Projects |
| Pictures of Stuff |
| Atheism |
| Stuff I Like |
| Stuff I Hate |
| Web Design Tips |
| Start a Dot Com |
| Data Modeling |
| Taco Meat |
Atheism
I once told someone I was an atheist. They then accused me of being a Satan worshipper. Pretty funny, eh? The world is full of interesting people. Just in case there are any questions about what it means to be an atheist, I suggest a trip to the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Dictionaries can be your friend sometimes.
The goal of this little atheism page is not to bash religion, just to convey some thoughts. I am not biased against any religion. This document isn't intended to cover all aspects of atheism or theology. The discussion here mainly involves the causes of events and why a deity would not be a part of that. If you agree with what I write here, great. If not, that's fine also.
One of my reasons for not believing in any supernatural deity is that throughout history, science has disproved many theological reasons for natural events. For instance, lightning was thought to be created by angry gods in some cultures. Go look in any science text book, and you will find the cause for lightning and thunder. If you had the right equipment to cause the right conditions, you could recreate this phenomenon in a laboratory.
"But that doesn't explain the creation of life."
Well what if you had the right equipment, and the right conditions? What stops you from creating life? Earth, all of its life forms, the achievements of each one, and everything else here appeared billions of years after the creation of the universe. A few billion years should be enough time for chemicals to come into the right conditions, and in the right ways to form everything around us. As human beings, we currently lack the technology to create such a perfect balance of life in a short time. Throw the right chemicals in the right places and it should happen by itself given a large enough time span.
Ever wonder how a computer generates a random number, for say, a game? A random number generator isn't truly "random," per se. A number, (we computer people call it a "seed"), is fed into a complex mathematical formula. The resulting number is used as a "pseudo" random number, which is normally some number between 0 and 1. You can do some easy manipulation to get a seemingly random number between 1 and 12 to represent a pair of dice for example. But where does the seed come from? Obviously, since the random number generator is just a formula, plugging in the same seed will get you the same "random number" each time. So, programmers generally use the current time in the computer's clock as the seed. That way, the number generator uses a different seed each time the random number generator is used. So, we get a number that is different every time. It *appears* random. So, if you knew the seed fed to the random number generator, and you know the formula, you can calculate what the "random" number will be.
"What does that have to do with believing in a god?"
People try to find reasons why things happen. If we can't figure out why something happened, we might call it random, or an act of god, or use some other kind of theological explanation. Humans have a history of being too arrogant to simply say "I don't know." My point is, *every* type of event should be 100% predictable. If you could identify every relevant factor to the cause of the event, and trace what would happen given those factors, you should be able to predict the event. My random number generator is a simple example of the concept. I like to use computer analogies because they help simplify concepts. Computers are great tools and are highly predictable. If you know how it works, you can predict exactly what the computer will do if you give it certain inputs.
"You obviously haven't heard of the Halting Problem."
Don't be so assumptive. In short, the Halting Problem was devised by Alan Turing to demonstrate by contradiction a problem that cannot be solved (i.e. outcome determined), even when you know the inputs. Basically, the Halting Problem is to determine whether or not an algorithm (sequence of steps to solve a problem) will terminate, or go into an infinite loop. According to the proof, you can't make that determination if you pass the algorithm to itself. (Note: This is by no means a complete definition of the Halting Problem. See the links below.) On a very superficial level, this appears to directly conflict with my point in the preceeding paragraph. However, Turing's proof does not fall within the scope of this document because it deals with algorithmic theory and problems with no definite solutions. My arguments here deal with eventually observable factors that play into observable events, that don't have to happen inside a computer. I say "eventually" because not all factors may be immediately obvious, or we may not be able to see them with current methods. While computers can be used to simulate real events, they can also be used to demonstrate unrealistic scenarios. I am not trying the challenge Turing, but if you could show me an observable event in nature, outside the realm of computer science, math and theory, where the Halting Problem applies, I'd be willing to reconsider my position in this paragraph. To learn more about the details of the Halting Problem, try this link, and I'd also recommend taking a look at this for what this actually means to computer programming.
Anyway, getting back to the computing examples... Your computer doesn't crash and lock up on you for no reason. It happens because someone made a mistake when they wrote the code for the operating system or application you are using. Such software can be complex with millions of lines of code, so it would be very difficult (and not economical) to track down the cause of everything that can go wrong before the product moves to the market.. The same concept should apply to the universe. We know the universe is much more complicated than any computer program. However, the only thing that keeps us from predicting anything worthwhile is complexity. You would have to work at it a while to determine the billions of factors that could affect any possible event. You would also have to work a while to figure out the "formula" used to determine *how* these factors affect an event. I never said it was easy, but I am pretty confident it could be done.
To illustrate my point further, back in 1989, scientists at the University of Tokyo began the development of a supercomputer called GRAPE (GRAvity PipEline), which is designed to compute gravitational forces on objects in space. The latest version of GRAPE, the GRAPE 6, can be used "not only to chart the probable paths of, say, two stars, but entire galaxies." This is the same thing I was talking about before. If you can predict the course of galaxies using a computer, why not any other event? It is just a question of finding enough relevant factors and finding the right formulas to break down the cause of an event. So, by applying this concept, you can in fact answer any question about anything.
"What about the creation of the universe itself?"
Well, if current science and calculations can't determine exactly what caused past events, then there must be some physical factors that we can't see with our existing technology. If you used the previously mentioned methods to do some predicting of future events, it would be possible to use the same methods to determine past events. You could do that by either working backwards, or find a point in time before the event and work forwards, as if you were predicting the future again.
"What about the laws of probability?"
If one were to go with the school of thought mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the concept of "randomness" doesn't really exist since all events can be predicted. Upon tossing a coin, are the outcomes of heads or tails really random? We say that the coin will land on heads 50% of the time because there are only two possible outcomes. We can use probability to help us predict events and we often use past events to make our probability-based predictions more accurate. However, suppose you were able to take all factors into account when tossing the coin: air resistance, the side the coin starts on, the force used to toss it, gravity, distance from the ground, imperfections in the coin, the type of surface it lands on, and whatever else you can think of. If you could somehow quantify those variables and plug them into the right mathematical formula, you should be able to correctly predict how the coin will land each time. As we can see, there are many factors that would affect how a coin would land if tossed. Like I said before, predicting things in such a way wouldn't be easy and you may need a powerful computer to do the math, but it isn't impossible. Therefore, probability itself would be nothing more than a shortcut for predicting events. Calling an event random would tell you nothing about it, except about a lack of information to give a real reason for its occurrence.
In summary, all events (past and future) could be broken down with mathematics, given enough information. When technology can provide that information, past events can be explained through logic and physical evidence, and future events can be predicted. When a person of faith claims an event happened because of "god's will" or it was a "miracle", I interpret that as "I have no idea why it happened." A lack of verifiable information makes it tempting to use a theological explanation for the event. When the cause of an event seems beyond current human understanding, it is even more tempting to do so.
"OK. What about the miracles mentioned in the Bible?"
Would you agree that the Bible was written by people? Many people believe that it was written by a bunch of people rather than it being the direct words of any god. The people who wrote it had their own perception of natural events. At the time of writing, those the authors probably didn't fully understand the cause of certain events. Not being able to provide an explanation, they called it a miracle. See a pattern here? It's pretty consistent with what I said before. I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, but common sense tells me that the Bible was written by people with an understanding of the world around them that was much more limited than the understanding we have today, simply because the Bible is a few thousand years old. The stories in the Bible are simpl y told according to someone else's interpretation of the events.
"Well, what if you die and then you find out there really is a god?"
I'll just ask him if there is any community service I can do to make up for not believing all these years. If this god of yours is as loving and understanding as you say, I don't think he would have a problem with it. =)
"You will burn in the Lake of Fire for this."
Thanks for the tip! Please come again soon. =)
© Copyright 2003 boz