• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science and atheism inconsistent?

Yerda

Veteran Member
From the article:

"I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. 'I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."

This seems a bit incoherent. Maybe his ideas couldn't be captured by a short article but I'm not sure from that quote that he has a better grasp of the matter than the average RFer.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
From the article:

"I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. 'I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."

This seems a bit incoherent. Maybe his ideas couldn't be captured by a short article but I'm not sure from that quote that he has a better grasp of the matter than the average RFer.
makes all the sense in the world to me.

everyone has a belief system; unless you're unconscious.

belief systems contain both negative and positive beliefs.

stating i do not believe or i do believe, in something takes a position relative to what is the belief for/against. it's like saying i believe cake tastes good, or disbelieve cake taste good.

it really doesn't say much about cake as it does what the person believes/disbelieves.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Atanu, mon brave

I hope all things are good at your place.

He's right that there can be no absolute statement 'X, clearly defined and said to be a real thing, does not exist'. (There can however be a valid statement, 'We have no reason to think X exists in reality', which is what most atheists say.)

However, we need a sufficient definition of a real X such that if we found X in reality we could determine that it was X. If there is no such definition, then we never get to the point of making meaningful statements about X, because we don't know what we're actually talking about.
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.

Basically the negative statement to what the physicist puts forward; however, it has never been shown how anything can come from nothing. If nothing could never have existed then something has always existed.

For example lets say that an an electron the became into something. An electron would need space, momentum, charge, mass and etc. An electron is not one thing but many things. How could a singularity produce everything from nothing?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.
He calls that the agnostic, and he's correct.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
From the article:

"I think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. 'I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about."

This seems a bit incoherent. Maybe his ideas couldn't be captured by a short article but I'm not sure from that quote that he has a better grasp of the matter than the average RFer.

Even though I am a theist, I agree, his argument is based on theist assumptions, and not grounded in scientific methods, because the Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify theories and hypothesis beyond the objective verifiable evidence. Atheism is consistent with the Methodological Naturalism

He is also grooselly over stating the claims of atheists concerning the existence or non-existence of God.

In reality the traditional claims of theism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are horrendously weak as stand alone religions, based on the lack of provenance of their scriptures, historical context, supernatural claims, and consistency in terms of science.

He is claiming a anecdotal subjective claim for the existence of God with a vague generalization to justify theism.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Probably the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, does not have a stance equivalent to the one that this physicist puts forward. Dawkins categorically states that he cannot claim beyond possibility that there is no god.
The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose. Theism lacks evidence, but it at least can offer a positive purpose. And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Actually no. An atheist is one that does not believe in a god. That is a big tent that varies from hard atheists that positively declare there is no God to agnostics that do not know if a god does it does not exist,but does not believe in any God that can be named.

The man should learn what an atheist is.
There are agnostics that do not fit that bill, so the "tent" has holes in it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The flaw of atheism is not what the atheist chooses to believe about the existence of gods. It's choosing to believe it without evidence, reason, or purpose. Theism lacks evidence, but it at least can offer a positive purpose. And agnosticism lack evidence, but it at least can claim honest skepticism, with an open mind. But atheism can claim none of these. It fails at every criteria.
Strangely quite a few do not understand what atheism is.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Basically the negative statement to what the physicist puts forward; however, it has never been shown how anything can come from nothing. If nothing could never have existed then something has always existed.

For example lets say that an an electron the became into something. An electron would need space, momentum, charge, mass and etc. An electron is not one thing but many things. How could a singularity produce everything from nothing?
Apart from the obvious, "Then where did god come from?" question (And no special pleading) have you read this...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00838F4IE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

That tends to disagree with your statement
 
Top