• 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?

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member

It can be. If by science you mean the prior assumption taken axiomatically that all things have a natural origin and there are no miracles. That assumption is not inherent to the scientific method and so naturalism can be a religious world view in that sense

It can be if you take a 'you can't let the divine foot in the door' approach as some have no matter how the data looks rather than going where the evidence leads as a prior commitment

Operational sciences of medicine, agriculture, engineering, technology tend to be more be neutral

Origin sciences can carry philosophical biases
 

PureX

Veteran Member
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.
Amen, sister!

But in the end, we cannot escape ourselves. We ARE always subject to the limitations that come with our being a unique, individual human being. And since those limitations result in our being non-omniscient, the theory that objective evidence = truth is BS. (And so is the theory that subjective experience = truth, of course.)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It can be. If by science you mean the prior assumption taken axiomatically that all things have a natural origin and there are no miracles. That assumption is not inherent to the scientific method and so naturalism can be a religious world view in that sense

It can be if you take a 'you can't let the divine foot in the door' approach as some have no matter how the data looks rather than going where the evidence leads as a prior commitment

Operational sciences of medicine, agriculture, engineering, technology tend to be more be neutral

Origin sciences can carry philosophical biases
One does not even need to assume that there are no miracles. The fact is that there are no reliable miracles. There are all sorts of claims of them from competing faiths. This makes all such claims highly suspect.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It can be. If by science you mean the prior assumption taken axiomatically that all things have a natural origin and there are no miracles. That assumption is not inherent to the scientific method and so naturalism can be a religious world view in that sense

It can be if you take a 'you can't let the divine foot in the door' approach as some have no matter how the data looks rather than going where the evidence leads as a prior commitment

Operational sciences of medicine, agriculture, engineering, technology tend to be more be neutral

Origin sciences can carry philosophical biases


Both science and atheism are well defined, there is no assumption in the results of science, the scientific method takes care of that

There is no assumption in atheism. It is fact that there is no proof of god.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member

I'm really tired of people attempting to redefine what an atheist is. An atheist simply lacks a belief that any god or gods definitely exist. There are SOME atheist who take it a step further and declare that they believe that there definitely is no god or gods. My assertion that I lack any belief that little green men from Mars definitely exist is NOT a claim that it's IMPOSSIBLE that little green men from Mars exist, simply that I lack sufficient evidence to state that they definitely DO exist.

Let's take the jar filled with marbles analogy. Let's say there are three people who enter a room none of them have ever been in before and there is a jar sitting on table filled to the brim with marbles.

One of the three individuals studies the jar - we'll call him theist - and states: "I believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less!" He then turns to the two men beside him - we'll call them atheist and agnostic - and asks: "Do you ALSO believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less?"

Atheist looks at the jar and replies: "No, I do not have sufficient evidence to suggest that there are exactly 448 marbles in the jar, no more and no less, so I can't say that I definitely believe that is the exact number."

Note that atheist didn't claim it was IMPOSSIBLE for there to be exactly 448 marbles, only that he lacks evidence to suggest that there definitely ARE 448 of them. Of course atheist COULD go a step further and declare there definitely are NOT 448 marbles in that jar! But that's certainly not required in order to simply have a lack of belief that there definitely ARE that number.

Finally agnostic takes a look at the jar. When he studies it from one angle he says: "Hey, you're right, I believe that there ARE exactly 448 marbles in that jar!" But then when he looks at it from another angle he suddenly declares: "Wait, maybe the 448 number doesn't make that much sense after all, I actually have too many doubts to claim that there definitely are 448 of them."

So depending on how the agnostic views the jar, his opinion changes... thus he can honestly declare "I don't KNOW if I believe that there are exactly 448 marbles in the jar, sometimes I think I do and other times I don't."
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
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.

I have never said there is a god. I just keep saying that something has always existed. More than likely it is a cycle. Everything has always existed and changes form constantly. It will keep changing form until it collapses on itself. Then everything will form into a dense black hole and explode outwards again. This is constantly happening over and over again. Everything has always existed and always will exist but the form of everything keeps changing. This can be seen in the past, the present and is predicted for the future. This can be seen in all forms of energy, matter. This can be seen in all life and non-life. This can be seen all through the universe.

But I can not rule out the possibility of God, though not probable and not the god of any religion on the earth.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
I agree that there is no evidence for or against the existence of gods. I stated that in my above post. But at least theism can provide a positive purpose. And agnosticism can claim honest open-mindedness. But atheism can claim none of these. It's a pointless, unfounded bias, that closes off the mind to other possibilities. That's it. It has no defense, which is why so few atheists will admit that they are atheists, when pressed, and instead pretend to be agnostics.
How can anyone be a pure agnostic on the belief of existence?

Also, how are you defining agnostic? I ask because I've seen people use atheist and agnostic in different ways.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Semantics... it depends what you mean by religion.

All things with a beginning need a cause. Things with no beginning do not

Nope, things did not need a cause (and in quantum mechanics they still dont). The only reason you think that they do is because of the second law of thermodynamics which did not begin to coalesce until 10e-42 of a second AFTER the BigBang. Not before the BB.

Things with no beginning! Interesting concept, can you provide some sort of evidence (by the scientific meaning of the word) for such a thing?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Amen, sister!

But in the end, we cannot escape ourselves. We ARE always subject to the limitations that come with our being a unique, individual human being. And since those limitations result in our being non-omniscient, the theory that objective evidence = truth is BS. (And so is the theory that subjective experience = truth, of course.)
We also cannot escape that "it is," since we are ("I am").
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Semantics... it depends what you mean by religion.

Logically? All things with a beginning need a cause. Things with no beginning do not.
That is just a special pleading fallacy. It gets you nowhere. And it also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. It was the beginning of our universe as we know it. It was not necessarily the beginning of everything. We may not know the cause of the Big Bang itself, but no knowing is never a valid reason to invoke a god.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

Oh now you are just stating the obvious, heedless of
it's being anathema to a philosopher.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
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?

There is no such thing as "nothing" same as there is no such thing as "no where".

Something always existed some where, we just don't not what or where.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It only becomes a non-issue if one can provide objective evidence of God. As stated, there is objective evidence of absence.

I disagree, there is no objective verifiable evidence for absence. Methodological Naturalism cannot formulate nor falsify hypothesis, beyond our physical existence for negative claims.
 
Last edited:
Top