Science and atheism inconsistent?

[Altfish]

I think the definition of proof and evidence is being misunderstood.
There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God(Yahweh of the Bible), whether that evidence constitutes as proof is in the mind of the evaluator. For example, Evolutionist and Creationist look at the same evidence concerning life on this planet. Yet the creationist sees the evidence as proof that God exists, and the evolutionist sees the evidence as random chance acting upon matter without the need for a creator. Same evidence, different conclusions.

A single source book is not good evidnce. There is more evidence for the existence of James Bond in Ian Fleming's series of book and there is also the films.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

If it's in regard to religion, some indeed hold no beliefs.

 

[ChristineM]

I think the dictionary can help out your misunderstanding of my post and the point I was making.
American Heritage Dictionary-

Evidence: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

Proof:The evidence or argument that COMPELS THE MIND TO ACCEPT AN ASSERTION AS TRUE.

Proof is evaluated in the mind of the person weighing the evidence. If the evidence is compelling to the individual's mind, then it's accepted as proof.
Again, me a creationist and an atheist can look at the same evidence used to argue for the existence of God and come up with 2 different conclusions. It's proof to me, and not proof to the atheist, but it's still evidence regardless whether you accept it or not

I am not interested in local colloquial definitions that suite american sensibilities. I quoted from the internationally accepted Oxford English Dictionary. Other international dictionaries provide similar definitions.

No, proof is factual, not a figment of the mind. You appear to be confusing proof with faith.

Again no, faith us not proof but you are most welcome to your faith.

 

[Fool]

If it's in regard to religion, some indeed hold no beliefs.

whether it's religious, or not, it's still a belief system and everyone has one to some degree.

 

[blü 2]

I did a little editing to my post to highlight that we cannot dispatch the upanishad to the trash can, because we do not know our own self, which it declares as the truth.

I don't place the upanishad in the trash can. I place it peacefully back on the shelf.

No doubt we'll have further discussions in future.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

whether it's religious, or not, it's still a belief system and everyone has one to some degree.

When it comes to gods, deities, and so forth I don't have enough information to have a belief. I could try, but I'd only be lying.

 

[Fool]

When it comes to gods, deities, and so forth I don't have enough information to have a belief. I could try, but I'd only be lying.

i didn't use the term at any time in reference to a deity. i'm speaking of belief systems, no divine power required. belief systems come in both negative and positive beliefs.

no deity required only requirement is belief, either negative or positive.


beliefs are subjective.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

i didn't use the term at any time in reference to a deity. i'm speaking of belief systems, no divine power required. belief systems come in both negative and positive beliefs.

We all hold beliefs, yes, about various things, but that encompasses so much that it leaves us with such a broad scope that it's useless to debate on. As this thread is about science and atheism, it works better to narrow belief down to religious belief.

 

[Fool]

We all hold beliefs, yes, about various things, but that encompasses so much that it leaves us with such a broad scope that it's useless to debate on. As this thread is about science and atheism, it works better to narrow belief down to religious belief.

and that is a subjective belief.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

and that is a subjective belief.

I guess technically, but pragmatically, reasonably, and practically saying "belief" tends to require it be narrowed down to something more specific for productive discourse. Especially since not everyone has a belief on the same things. Saying "belief" is about as broad as saying "soda."

 

[Willamena]

Alternatively:

"Many people today hold to a Gnostic view of things without realizing the fact. Believing that human beings can be fully understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its natural condition. Throughout much of the world, and particularly in western countries, the Gnostic faith that knowledge can give humans a freedom no other creature can possess has become the predominant religion."

John Gray, The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom

He was referring to the Gnostic religion, though. John Gray, on the other hand, just redefined scientism and called it Gnosticism.

Philosopher John Gray Believes Humanity's Desire for Freedom Is a Lie

What is Gnosticism?
The two elements of Gnosticism as a religion were: Humans are spirits trapped in a material body, the flesh. Second, Gnosticism believes that we can get out through a special kind of knowledge. That was a mystical knowledge in earlier times, but later one that got attached to science. Some people would claim that Gnosticism can't be reconciled with science, but on the contrary—it's very strong in scientific thinking.
The prevalent thinking is: We've discovered we're trapped in our bodies, so what human beings really are is minds. The way out of that dark cosmos under whose laws we stand, which force us to work, which force us to age and to die, is to acquire a special kind of knowledge. Then we would no longer be enslaved by matter. That is Gnosticism in a nutshell. But Gnosticism, even in its pre-scientific forms, is a radical error.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not interested in local colloquial definitions that suite american sensibilities. I quoted from the internationally accepted Oxford English Dictionary. Other international dictionaries provide similar definitions.

No, proof is factual, not a figment of the mind. You appear to be confusing proof with faith.

Again no, faith us not proof but you are most welcome to your faith.

The proper use of proof in this context is as used in logic and math. When we are dealing with facts and objective verifiable evidence we are dealing with falsification by scientific methods. Layman's use of proof is notoriously misused.

 

[ChristineM]

The proper use of proof in this context is as used in logic and math. When we are dealing with facts and objective verifiable evidence we are dealing with falsification by scientific methods. Layman's use of proof is notoriously misused.

As is the religious use of proof

Proof in logic must be factual otherwise it is false.

Mathematical proof must meet criteria of being verifiable otherwise it is incorrect

 

[PureX]

Actually, atheism is really very defensible, provided that one makes only the claim that there is, so far, no evidence that remotely suggests the existence of any deity active in the world, but if such evidence were produced, my attitude would change.

There are two glaring flaws in this position. One is that it's untrue that there is no evidence, because there is plenty of personal, subjective evidence that you simply choose to ignore, and the other is that you assume a conclusion based on "no evidence" as if it were the logical default conclusion, when it clearly is not. And no matter how many times these flaws are pointed out and explained to you, you will simply refuse to acknowledge them to maintain your irrational bias. This is a clear example of the close-minded bias of atheism that the OP is referring to.

 

[Audie]

Why on earth would I do that? I'd never call asking for evidence when making claims about empirical data to be "Scientism".


Dear lord in the mythical heavens! Why on earth do you imagine I would ever, ever, at any time, cite the garbage you say? I'm far too rational for that. You must be debating with "you theists", and not me. If you're going to debate me, than make it accurate, please.


None of this applies to me.


I know quite well what it is. Do you?

I will have a word with my evil twin re these matters.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Which isn't of much help in this case, but nice to know.

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).

We seem agreed on this.

But some guys conclude that a living beings consciousness is nothing but the result of mechanism (philosophical naturalism).

Some do, sure. Some don't. My disagreement with you is around conflation of atheism and philosophical naturalism. They are not the same.

If philosophical naturalism is pure empirical evidence based then how this conclusion is possible?

Why does philosophical naturalism need to be pure empirical evidence based? That seems contradictory to me.

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.

Scientists should be agnostic, and neither theists nor atheists can do science?
How does that jive with whatever empirical evidence the last thousand years has given us?

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

Perhaps not. I would humbly submit that you should be less certain of my position than you seem to be. We appear to have talked past each other to some degree.

 

[shunyadragon]

As is the religious use of proof.

Not clear. It is true many apologists try and use logic to justify their beliefs and slide into a tube of mud fallacies such as intense 'begging the question.'

Proof in logic must be factual otherwise it is false. [/quote]

Actually no, read up on logic. Logic is not necessarily based on 'facts,' and most often it is not. Though it is widely misused and misrepresented. Logic more accurately is:

from: Philosophy of logic - Wikipedia
Philosophical logic is the branch of study that concerns questions about reference, predication, identity, truth, quantification, existence, entailment, modality, and necessity. Philosophical logic is the application of formal logical techniques to philosophical problems.

Nothing here necessarily deals with 'facts.'

Mathematical proof must meet criteria of being verifiable otherwise it is incorrect

Math is not necessarily verifiable. The ultimate value of math is it usable or functional to satisfy a need. Math is part of our every day life, and the scientific tool box, but math itself does not have to be verifiable. Forms of math can and are developed with no apparent use or verifiability, but later may be useful in the science tool box.

From: Mathematical logic - Wikipedia

Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics exploring the applications of formal logic to mathematics. It bears close connections to metamathematics, the foundations of mathematics, and theoretical computer science.[1] The unifying themes in mathematical logic include the study of the expressive power of formal systems and the deductive power of formal proof systems.

Mathematical logic is often divided into the fields of set theory, model theory, recursion theory, and proof theory. These areas share basic results on logic, particularly first-order logic, and definability. In computer science (particularly in the ACM Classification) mathematical logic encompasses additional topics not detailed in this article; see Logic in computer science for those.

Since its inception, mathematical logic has both contributed to, and has been motivated by, the study of foundations of mathematics. This study began in the late 19th century with the development of axiomatic frameworks for geometry, arithmetic, and analysis. In the early 20th century it was shaped by David Hilbert's program to prove the consistency of foundational theories. Results of Kurt Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen, and others provided partial resolution to the program, and clarified the issues involved in proving consistency. Work in set theory showed that almost all ordinary mathematics can be formalized in terms of sets, although there are some theorems that cannot be proven in common axiom systems for set theory. Contemporary work in the foundations of mathematics often focuses on establishing which parts of mathematics can be formalized in particular formal systems (as in reverse mathematics) rather than trying to find theories in which all of mathematics can be developed.

 

[Willamena]

Why does philosophical naturalism need to be pure empirical evidence based? That seems contradictory to me.

Because "nature" is empirical-evidence based. Nature is what is available to the senses. From Wikipedia: Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe.

 

[Willamena]

Proof in logic must be factual otherwise it is false.

Actually no, read up on logic. Logic is not necessarily based on 'facts,' and most often it is not. Though it is widely misused and misrepresented. Logic more accurately is:

from: Philosophy of logic - Wikipedia
Philosophical logic is the branch of study that concerns questions about reference, predication, identity, truth, quantification, existence, entailment, modality, and necessity. Philosophical logic is the application of formal logical techniques to philosophical problems.

Nothing here necessarily deals with 'facts.'

Truth doesn't necessarily deal with facts? That's new.

 

[PureX]

A good post (from atanu) and a good response from you (lewisnotmiller).

My disagreement with you is around conflation of atheism and philosophical naturalism. They are not the same.

Why does philosophical naturalism need to be pure empirical evidence based? That seems contradictory to me.

I think you need to clarify what you understand to be 'philosophical naturalism'. Because there are varied shades of 'scientism' (scientific materialism) wafting through the atheism in many of the comments on this thread, and on this site, generally. And though I agree these are not the same idea as 'science' itself, or as 'philosophical materialism', or as 'philosophical naturalism', they certainly sound similar, and share some common traits. Thus, it's an area of easy confusion.

Scientists should be agnostic, and neither theists nor atheists can do science?

Humans are not intellectually one-dimensional, so we have little difficulty changing our conceptual positions relative to the various tasks at hand.

I would humbly submit that you should be less certain of my position than you seem to be. We appear to have talked past each other to some degree.

Yes, (me too,) some clarification would seem to be in order.