• 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?

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I am discussing atheism as a philosophical position. I am not discussing atheists except in the most generalized, idealized way. I am not here to argue with any self-proclaimed atheists about what they do or don't believe.

I'm trying to work out what that has to do with the OP, to be honest.
It's also about as useful as arguing about 'theism' in any general sense.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
In my experience, most people genuinely care whether what they believe is true or not and if there are reliable means of discovering either way.

What works for you is fine by me, but it's more than a little unreasonable for you to be on here posting whatever you feel like saying while telling me, responding to your claims, that no-one cares what I think.
You're making this personal, when it's not.

We all have an ego, and our ego's job is to create and maintain a self-identity. It holds whatever we think we are in relation to the world around us as "the truth of us" regardless of nearly any evidence to the contrary, until it's spell is 'broken', and it MUST find/create a new concept of self<->world. So that a lot of the time, what "works" for us in our lives is not what comports with anyone's ideas of "objective reality" (or truth), but what comports with that idea of self<->world that our egos have already established and will fight hard to maintain.

The process of science can help us to overcome this innate ego-bias, but only relative to our understanding of the mechanisms of physics, which does not encompass the majority of our cognitive life experience. Which is why science cannot and will not ever, by itself, eliminate the human need for god/religion.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
The main point?
The OP was a link to the article without any commentary or position...

Regardless of belief or non-belief in God, a position of methodological naturalism is most appropriate for scientific endeavours.
The article linked in the OP is suggesting that such a position is problematic for an atheist. That seems quite bizarre.

My point is included in the linked article.

Second, the position of an atheist (philosophical materialism) is not compatible with or is not same as scientific method (methodological naturalism).
 

ecco

Veteran Member
From the link...Gleiser
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.

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.

I believe PureX and Gleiser both have it wrong when they say there is no evidence to support atheism. Generally speaking, Atheism is a belief there are no gods. I go further than that liberal definition: There are no gods. Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. The very notion of gods is a man-made construct just like Santa Claus and Psychic Snowflakes.

What is my evidence?
History.

All groups of humans created gods that look like them or an idealized version of themselves. All gods reflect the culture of their creators. This is true whether one is referencing gods or God.

One can also look beyond direct evidence from history and address the question of why humans created gods. Even in today's culture, we see people accepting theism over scientific knowledge. Thousand of years ago there was no writing and no real scientific knowledge. Knowledge was about the best places to hunt, the best way to treat infections, what foods to safely eat, how to hone tools. This knowledge was passed from generation to generation through oral traditions. Also passed on through oral traditions were stories about where the people came from, what caused the volcanoes to erupt, and why locusts attacked their crops. Ten thousand years ago there were two possible answers:
  1. I don't know
  2. GodDidIt
Leaders who say "I don't know" don't last too long.

We can also look at the other side of the argument; the evidence supporting the existence of actual gods. Some theists will assert that every flower is evidence of supernatural creation. Some theists will argue that everything could not have developed through pure random chance. Some will claim that everything created must have a creator. These assertions, arguments, and claims are not really evidence. They have all been addressed by current scientific knowledge and found to be lacking.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
My point is included in the linked article.

Then you should have stated that. I regularly post articles where I don't agree with everything they say, but they're interesting.

Second, the position of an atheist (philosophical materialism) is not compatible with or is not same as scientific method (methodological naturalism).

It is not the same, I agree. However it is ENTIRELY compatible. Please suggest how it is not.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
But you know I'll say it's either real or imaginary and repeat my definitions, and you'll present your rebuttal and so on.

Perhaps the lesson is that when that's done we'll still get on amicably.


The amicability is primarily due to your nice nature. I respect that.

Often, you have asked me definition of ‘X— God’ and the testability of it. I have not succeeded. But let me try once more.

X — the God, is best defined as ‘That Thou Art’. This is the Vedantic definition. You have to test it. But I can help you by pointing to an Upanishadic story involving BrahmA (creator mind), Indra (leader of the senses) and Virochana (ego demon) from Chandogya Upanishad.

Upanishads
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Atheism is a label for a philosophical position, not a group of people. It's the position that has no basis in evidence, effective value, or possibility, leaving only an empty bias (IMO). And you don't seem to be able to refute this.
Atheism is basically the null hypothesis. It is the starting point one changes from it when one finds evidence that supports a belief. It needs no evidence. It is claims that there is a specific god that need evidence.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Objectivity is a subjectively held opinion about reality. It's based on a scientific materialist philosophical paradigm. If you hold that paradigm, of course you believe the "evidence" that paradigm generates is the only 'true' evidence. But theism is a different philosophical paradigm, with a different criteria for 'true' evidence. And applying the criteria of one philosophical paradigm to another is illogical, biased, and mostly a waste of time. If you want to convert other people from one paradigm to another, you're going to have to stop trying to show them which is right/wrong (true/untrue) according to your "evidence" and instead show them which is more valuable to them in their experience of life. Because true/untrue are defined by the philosophical paradigm through which they are being identified and assessed.
Subjectivity is in the same boat as objectivity: the two are not inherent. Reality claims both, so is neither. They are just ways of looking at the world, ways of looking at all things: without reference to the subject, or with it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I believe PureX and Gleiser both have it wrong when they say there is no evidence to support atheism.
I agree, but it's really a matter of context. We all have our own "evidence" based reasoning for whatever position we hold regarding the existence of gods, and they are based on our own understanding and experience. How could it be otherwise? They are based on our experience and understanding of what it means to "exist". And on our experience and understanding of what it means for an observation to be deemed "true". So when I say that the atheist has no evidence, I mean that by the atheist's own conceptual requirement of "objective evidence", he can have no evidence. Of course he could have subjective evidence, as we all can and do, but because he refuses to acknowledge subjective evidence as valid (true) evidence, he then has none.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
"Make the most of" according to what criteria? Hedonism? Because isn't that about what's left to you when the mechanisms of physics are all that determines truth?

Some choose hedonism, others choose service. Most of us atheists think that humans determine what's moral and ethical, and that religious teachings on such matters are nothing more than outdated, primitive, man-made takes. For example, I'm a fan of modern human rights, and supporting those rights seems a far better use of my time than adhering to anything found in scripture.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Show me it. Ockham's razor use the simplest solution. You can only create nothing in your imagination no where else is it possible.
I could say,, "Show me your god" it is Ockham's Razor - the simplest solution is that there is no god.
It is the same thing; I am not excluding that something could come from nothing; you are.
I don't know (and that's fine with me) I have no proof but I am not ruling it out.
There could be a god, I doubt it but will happily change my mind if the evidence points that way.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member

Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.


Atheism says they disbelieve gods exist because no evidence has ever been put forward to show a gods existence.

Science says what gods? There is no evidence of gods to study, show me a physical/natural evidence of god and we will study it.

Not quite inconsistent in that there is considerable overlap on the subject of gods, none are evidenced to exist.

Actually using the link it would seem religion is far more inconsistent with science but we already knew that.
 
Top