Do Atheists realize the scientific conflict their belief system has with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

Question

I see atheism as a religion, since its basic founding principle "non-belief in deities" is in conflict with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and as such must be an article of faith for any reasonable atheist, whoops but that makes them a religion doesn't it? So are there any reasonable atheists who can admit this?

To clarify the conflict I see with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it basically says because of the chaotic appearance of matter at the quantum level you can't ever truly know the state of anything, you can only know its probable state. Yet atheists say they know there are no Gods, but to prove this scientifically would violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Not only that but to measure a thing changes it also holds true for this, to prove there was no God, you'd have to be everywhere in all of existence, for all of time at every level of existence, but whoops you just became God, by most definitions, and certainly by the definition of atheism right?

Answer 1

There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

Answer 2

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle proves that there cannot be such a thing as an "omniscient" entity. Therefore it is a very strong point against the existence of any god.

What's more, you can disprove god by contradiction. You do not need to know every particle in the universe to disprove god.

Answer 3

You seem like someone who has the slightest grip on things scientific and then try to use that against atheists.

Atheists, at least many atheists I know, so NOT assert that we, or anyone, can prove god does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. We just say that there is no proof that god exists...and that much of what undergirds religion and faith are obvious myths and shaky logic. I do feel that no gods exist, but I always leave room for doubt (Uncertainty...see?). But my uncertainty is miniscule based on observable evidence.

You are just grasping at straws here.

Come to www.booktalk.org if you really want to discuss these issues with an open mind.

Mr. P.

Answer 4

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle has to do with determining the position of electrons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with proof of the existence or nonexistence of God. You are comparing apples to Volkswagons. Your argument makes no logical sense at all. Science can not prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural because no test can be devised to measure something that can not be measured.

BTW: I'm not an atheist.

Answer 5

I would have to agree. Although Im no atheist but I do realize that when an atheist says s/he does not believe in god, they also very quietly say: I BELEIVE there is no god.

Thus, they do have a belief system, and not really a quiet uncertainty.

However, I agree with southpaw also.

Theirs is not a religion per se because of the nature of the belief: they do not have to hold true to certain principles to be atheists, they do not have a reference point whereby atheism is taught and they do not have rules and regulations like religion does.

If in the future such a thing actually takes place, then we might consider atheism as a religion of its own. But until then, its simply a different form of belief. Not really religion or non belief per se.

Answer 6

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle talks about matter at the quantum level. It is not applicable to matter at the "macro" level

Answer 7

Speaking of uncertainty, you have a conflict in your argument. In one place you say that atheism is "a non-belief in deitites." But your Heisenberg argument is based on your claim that "atheists say they know there are no Gods".

Non-belief in something is not the same as knowing there is not something. Knowledge and belief are not the same, they are antithetical.

Answer 8

Larry M, I got your point.

To a certain extend, I agree that some so-called atheist are not aware that when you look at things at the quantum science level, certain things that look unreasonable or improbable will become reasonable and probable. And certain things that look reasonable or probable will look otherwise at the quantum science level.

For example, at the basic level, ordinary people will laugh and say that there is no such thing as fourth dimension. They will say it only exist in science fiction or movie. But at quantum science level, it is not impossible of a fourth dimension to exist. This theory is not created by ordinary people, but is intoduced by science professors etc (a highly educated people). They even come up with THE STRING THEORY where even atheists who study science at elementary level will find it difficult to grasp.

So, atheists should not verbally attack religious people without giving them opportunity to explain their side of the story.

Answer 9

I like this question ...
However by the same reasoning there must be an infinite amount of Gods. However none of them again by definition could be all-powerful .... now the atheist has a similar problem to the Christian - but this time which God to not believe in.

Answer 10

I don't believe in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal either. Hope that clears up your misunderstanding.
You are grasping for straws, looking for anything to prove your own personal beliefs, reminiscent of Pres. Bush looking for any reason to invade Iraq, knowing full well he was going to invade regardless.