• 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?

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Agnosticism is a bit of a different philosophical proposition from theism and atheism; so that it can overlap with either atheism or theism. Agnosticism simply asserts that there is insufficient information available for one to determine the existence or non-existence of "God". This does not, however, preclude one from making that determination based on something other than "sufficient information" (we each have to define for ourselves what this "sufficient information" would entail). For example, there are many theists who will assert that they lack "sufficient information" to determine that "God exists". And yet they still can choose to trust in (have faith in) the belief that God does exist based on the value that doing so produces in their experience of life, rather then on any required information. And likewise, an atheist might choose to maintain the belief that no gods exist based on some criteria other than "insufficient information" (though I don't know what this other criteria would be, as I see no value in a determined non-belief).

I've seen the agnostic definition vs atheist definition raged between themselves, continuously. It seems like a meaningless topic because disbelief, non-belief, and then you have suspension of judgement, are so hard to wrap someone's head around. Then you have atheists/agnostics who have decided a certain usage of the word that conflicts with others. I've noticed, sadly, definitions become more important than the meaning or usage. Anyway.

Agnosticism simply asserts that there is insufficient information available for one to determine the existence or non-existence of "God".
I assume you're using, then, suspension of judgement to define agnosticism Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I have some criticism here. I'm not sure if it's even possible to suspend judgement, but lets assume it is. I'd think, in this regard, I'm much more of an agnostic than atheist concerning the prime mover or cause of the universe. This thing might be defined as god.
However, god is also used for personal deities and whatnot, ranging in the thousands. So, I'm more a soft-atheist concerning these deities, because there's evidence to the contrary for scripture, definitions, conflicting views, yada yada. So when you say this "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." it's really quite meaningless considering how imprecise and convoluted the terms are. However, if I were to go on the offensive it wouldn't be as pretty. Many theists do not even consider the cause of the universe, the alternative, and have made up their mind, nor do they consider other gods(they are atheist towards them), unless it supports their god in some way. This seems far more biased than the atheist by any stretch.

And yet they still can choose to trust in (have faith in) the belief that God does exist based on the value of that doing so produces in their experience of life, rather then on the information.
Interesting. I've never seen a theist admit they believe god exists because it gives their life value. They seem to genuinely belief god exists because of evidence(anecdotal or not).
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
"Evidence" is subjective, so that doesn't really matter. We can't escape from existing, or from existing within our own consciousness, so as to observe these experiences relative to each other. So we have no way of ascertaining any kind of 'truth' of the relationship between them. We have to live what we believe, because it's all we have.
We can go with the evidence we have, and not with supposition.

I agree. And neither of them can present us with any truth (or evidence of truth) but their own.
Then let them.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Without having read what everyone else has said here, I have only one comment about the article's statement that

"Is it saying to much to say something doesn't exist when you have no evidence either way?"
By and large this is not the atheistic position. Most atheists don't say god doesn't exist, but rather that they have no reason to believe he does. In other words, it's a lack of belief in gods, not an outright denial.

And to paraphrase the quote above:

"Is it saying to much to say something does exist when you have no evidence either way?"

.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Without having read what everyone else has said here, I have only one comment about the article's statement that
"Is it saying to much to say something doesn't exist when you have no evidence either way?"
By and large this is not the atheistic position. Most atheists don't say god doesn't exist, but rather that they have no reason to believe he does. In other words, it's a lack of belief in gods, not an outright denial.

And to paraphrase the quote above:
"Is it saying to much to say something does exist when you have no evidence either way?"

.
No, but it is bad grammar:p
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I've seen the agnostic definition vs atheist definition raged between themselves, continuously. It seems like a meaningless topic because disbelief, non-belief, and then you have suspension of judgement, are so hard to wrap someone's head around. Then you have atheists/agnostics who have decided a certain usage of the word that conflicts with others. I've noticed, sadly, definitions become more important that the meaning or usage. Anyway.
The arguments are mostly because the people involved refuse to clearly hold and articulate their respective positions. "Belief" is a choice that one makes in response to a philosophical proposition, it is not the proposition, itself. So defining theism and atheism as "belief" or "unbelief" is misleading and inaccurate. Also, agnosticism is not an across the board "suspension of judgment", it's based specifically on a lack of information. Or, as the word implies; a lack of 'knowledge' (gnosis). So agnosticism does not mean that one refuses to make a determination, but only that one is not making that determination based on 'gnosis': on what one knows to be so.
I've never seen a theist admit they believe god exists because it gives their life value. They seem to genuinely belief god exists because of evidence(anecdotal or not).
This happens because theists have to use the artifice of language to express an ideal that is basically beyond their grasp. Some theists understand and recognize the difference between the artifice, and the ideal the artifice is intending to represent, and some do not. But they all have to use a language that is, itself, a form of artifice, to express that ideal.

Think of it this way. "God" is the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. But we humans cannot grasp the 'substance' of such an idealization. It's too inclusive, and too expansive. Like perfection, or infinity, the term "God" becomes a placeholder in our minds and hearts for something that we experience as a profound reality, and yet also as a profound mystery. So for some of us, the conceptual placeholders (God, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, Buddha, etc.) can't be distinguished from the profound and mysterious experience that the placeholders are intended to represent. while for others, it can be. Yet when you talk with each of these types of theists, they still have to use the languages and images and myths of the placeholders intended to represent the ideal. And so they all tend to sound like their 'placeholders' (religious deities, myths, practices and so on) are "God", to them. Even though the truth of what they mean is sometimes significantly deeper.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No there is not. Past events in history cannot be negatively determined by objective evidence. Past historical claims of events can only be objectively determined based on archaeological evidence.

Archaeological evidence is physical (objective in some way). Without objectivity all you have is faith
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I thought of that dino because there is a park in
Taipei with a wonderfully detailed (bronze?) Allosaurus.

There is a winding path through tall thick tropical
vegetation, then, there it is!

The effect is that it had been lying down, resting
perhaps. Heard you coming, and has risen to
maybe half of fully upright.

It's head is turned, looking right at you. Maybe
four meters away. You are not going to get away.

(If he is like yours its get away from
nothing worse than that you
simply must sit down for some tea)


Nice, there must be something about allosaurus and gardens. Marqueyssac is a beautiful mountain top garden with s nice restaurant where peacocks try to pinch your food
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Our evidence IS supposition. It's the nature of the human condition. And we can either acknowledge that, or we can willfully ignore it. It's up to us.
That suggests a belief in something beyond our cognizant abilities that is "true."

But there is no evidence for that. On the contrary, "true" is a word that, like all words, was developed to describe what we cognize.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
"Belief" is a choice that one makes in response to a philosophical proposition, it is not the proposition, itself.
Would you mind expounding on this? I don't know how someone can choose to believe.

So defining theism and atheism as "belief" or "unbelief" is misleading and inaccurate.
Sure, though on plato stanford it says, ""It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”." perhaps something believed would be more appropriate?

Even though the truth of what they mean is sometimes significantly deeper.
Lol well this is just a guess. They may mean something significantly deeper, but that would be the same as someone high thinking they're thinking of deep things. Let's assume they are actually thinking of something deeper, then it'll be impossible to know. As an observation, this argument could be used for anyone, even the atheist :p
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's referring to spiritual attainment. Gnosticism is a form of neo-Platonic, post-Pagan, post-Christian form of spirituality that flourished for a brief period between the late 2nd century to the 4th and has resurrected into the 20th/21st century. What the word means is most certainly NOT the same thing as the way you are using it.
There were multiple definitions in that link. There very often are more than one definition for any one word. The definition that you are referring to would be the third one listed. It can also be a general "knowing" of spiritual matters. No other qualifications need apply.
 

Firemorphic

Activist Membrane
It can also be a general "knowing" of spiritual matters. No other qualifications need apply.

No, that's just foolish misapplication and misunderstanding.
It (properly) refers to an acquired process of external spiritual knowledge relating to metaphysics and philosophy. The best likening I can give you that you *might* get, would be Shamanism.
A Gnostic is not an armchair book reader, it is a seeker of altered states and the whole nine yards (irregardless of religion or tradition, in the sense that Gnostic traditions have continued to emerge throughout the mystical traditions of all religions.......)
A Gnostic is someone that you (as the materialist you are) would refer to as a crackpot, you'd probably see them on the level as a New Ager or something.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Is anyone here an atheist towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Therefore, are you inconsistent with science?

But there are atheists of that variety. You can find them in this thread.

If you are not an atheist towards Flying Spaghetti Monster or Flying Teapot or Pink Unicorn, then what are you an atheist towards? What evidence would you look for to discard atheism and what evidence would satisfy you?
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Would you mind expounding on this? I don't know how someone can choose to believe.


Sure, though on plato stanford it says, ""It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”." perhaps something believed would be more appropriate?


Lol well this is just a guess. They may mean something significantly deeper, but that would be the same as someone high thinking they're thinking of deep things. Let's assume they are actually thinking of something deeper, then it'll be impossible to know. As an observation, this argument could be used for anyone, even the atheist :p

People on the whole seem to an unlimited capacity
for self deception.

If some glory in it, and can believe six impossible
things before breakfast, that is their deal.

Choosing to believe is self deception.

"Faith" is self deception, when applied to such as god,
but, to the theos it is a highest and purest virtue.

I was taught to be on guard against indulging
in self deception.

The theos are taught to glory in it, and, apparently,
to think it is the human condition such that those
not infected with god-ism are deliberately choosing
not to believe-generally out of foolishness, or base
and ignoble (self indulgent) motives.

But what is it that motivates thread after thread devoted
to attacking atheists as variously immoral, illogical,
etc?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
There were multiple definitions in that link. There very often are more than one definition for any one word. The definition that you are referring to would be the third one listed. It can also be a general "knowing" of spiritual matters. No other qualifications need apply.
There is no "knowing" when it comes to atheism. Atheism is a belief.


The "gnostic atheist" is the most absurd meme that has infected the early 21st Century with illogic, and I hope someday it dies a horrible death.
*polite curtsy*
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That suggests a belief in something beyond our cognizant abilities that is "true."

But there is no evidence for that. On the contrary, "true" is a word that, like all words, was developed to describe what we cognize.
Yep; "true" is whatever fits with our experience and expectations. Science is just a process we use to test our own expectations. But it's our own expectations that design the test, so the idea that the scientific process somehow frees humanity from it's ignorance and bias and shows us 'true reality' is foolishness. All it shows us is what works relative to our expectations, and what doesn't. What that has to do with 'true reality' is anyone's guess, ... and everyone's opinion, of course. :)
 
Last edited:

atanu

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

Nice that we have some agreement at least.

I am a chemist (geochemist). My 2nd and 3rd brothers are physicist and geologist respectively. The middle brother has moderate international repute.

When my father breathed his last on my arms, I asked my physicist brother "Where did the I awareness go?" My brother said that physics did not presume that it had an answer, since this subject was not in its scope of investigation (methodological naturalism).

But some guys conclude that a living beings consciousness is nothing but the result of mechanism (philosophical naturalism). If philosophical naturalism is pure empirical evidence based then how this conclusion is possible? There is no empiricism in this conclusion. In my opinion, similar to the view of the scientist of the OP, philosophical naturalism (and atheism) is a closed view and that is not what science is.

Anyway, I do not think that this discussion will lead anywhere, since one needs to actually eat a mango to know its taste.

I will wait for Blu's response to Vedanta definition of God. If you are interested you may join.:)

Science and atheism inconsistent?
 
Last edited:
Top