Does liking and believing some aspects of what is known as 'metaphysics/new age ' make you less of an atheist? I mean I don't believe the missing part of the Cosmos is god. I think, however that it very well might be Consciousness/Awareness. And that kinda falls into the noetic/metaphysics brand of fringe science or new age philsophy. I posted this question here cause while I acknowledge that is more pseudo science/fringe science, I have head a lot of overlap with the quantum physics field, making me think that metaphysics and quantum physics are virtually the same field just with a different .. lens. one is more experimental the other more .... holistic/spiritual. Like medicine, you have an illness ( gap in our understanding of the cosmos) and you can treat it with pharmaceutical meds tested in labs and all that (quantum physics) or you can go the holistic herbal approach of alternative medicine (metaphysics.)
That is how it computes in my mind. However, given the fringe aspect of this science if this discussion gets moved to religion or philosophy ...etc, that's fine. I just think since it doesn't directly have to do with god or debating existence per se that it would default to a more 'science' category. But that's besides the point ... the point is I find myself wondering what the non-theist community thinks about metaphysics. Because many times I have run into the 'stereotype' Dawkins clone that doesn't believe in ANYTHING nothing that doesn't have evidence to back it up.
So thoughts, as an atheist/non-theist on quantum physics/metaphysics/noetic science/new age philosophy and thinking?
The more I think about it, the more I suspect that "metaphysics" is just one more brand of woo, attempting to introduce the supernatural or supernatural aspects to a world which is otherwise examinable, testable, and understandable. As such, I have about as much use for it as a snake has for shoes. Either you can demonstrate your point or your supposition or you can't ... or to put it another way:
If you've got the truth, you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it. Show people.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
I think I'm with you on this one. Philosophy and theology seem to share a fundamental dependence on conditional statements that aren't grounded in the natural world.
Offhand, I'd say that's the understatement of the day!
Like Matthew said, it wouldn't necessarily make you not an atheist, since really all that is is the lack of belief in a god. Not all atheists are rationalists, and some people are skeptical in some fields and credulous in others. My girlfriend is an atheist, but she thinks there might be something to astrology and is agnostic about ghosts. Of course, calling the "Missing part of the Cosmos" a "Consciousness/Awareness." is treading pretty close to a god or divinity of some sort in my book.
I'm not so sure that there is a "missing part" of the cosmos or universe. What there has always been is a lack of understanding of it (and how it works) on the part of humans. Then we invented gods to fill the gap and seemingly solve the problem. In time we discovered that all of the "sacred writings" are badly flawed and there is no evidence of gods.
Quantum science and metaphysics are fine when they work or are proven, but you can get into some areas that are rediculous. There is nothing really new about the "new age" philosophy, and you cannot see or control elements, project your thoughts to someone else's mind, or do the ancient practice of Magick in some "new form" today. Many things here are misunderstood or otherwise just plain hocum. At the bottom of this "hocum" you find that someone is making money! That's what it's all about.
Seances and "ectoplasm" seem to be almost non-existent today. There is no spirit world or "in between state." You do not have a "spirit" as in body, mind, and spirit. (This is all bullshit of 3's from the buybull to further "prove" ideas of a trinity, and put that trinity inside of man.) The truth is, YOU became a living spirit at birth. Death again is like before you were born - there is nothing.
If I knock on wood and ask, "Splitfoot, are you there," it proves that I believe already. There is nothing scientific or proveable here. This is not study and it is not science. All things must be proven or dis-proven.
I do admit that there are times that it appears that the universe has intelligence, but that "intelligence" doesn't appear to be a thinking brain, or give a damn about you. Compare it to your body healing itself after an injury or a cut. The universe (like your body) has so much to it that we are not yet able to understand it all.
I know little of "stereotypes and Dawkins clones" but trust me, all things must be proven.
"Hey, Charley, how does that car work?"
"Nobody knows, but it sure runs good doesn't it."
I suppose you can be an atheist without being a skeptic or a rationalist, though that would put you at odds with a lot of atheists who are those other things.
Metaphysics is interesting, and I like some of the ideas in the way that I like particularly creative science fiction. I don't, however, feel I should adhere to any new age beliefs if there's no evidence to back them up. They're fun things to think about as metaphors for other aspects of the human condition, and that's about it.