It is sad that he saw fit to develop such a huge misrepresentation of atheism.
It is bordering on libel. If it has not become such.
-
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?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
It is bordering on libel. If it has not become such.
Sorry, this time I must point out that you are very mistaken.
Fine... if you don't want to clarify your position, I don't care enough to harp on it.
There are many strips of atheism but . . .
From: https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH4g
Methodological naturalism can be understood as the view that the best or the only way to acquire knowledge within science is by adopting the assumption that all physical phenomena have physical causes. This presumption by itself does not commit one to the view that only physical entities and causes exist, or that all knowledge must be acquired through scientific methods. Methodological naturalism, therefore, is typically not seen as being in direct conflict with theism or having any particular implications for the existence or non-existence of God.
Ontological naturalism, however, is usually seen as taking a stronger view about the existence of God. Ontological naturalism is the additional view that all and only physical entities and causes exist.
Among its theistic critics, there has been a tendency to portray ontological naturalism as a dogmatic ideological commitment that is more the product of a recent intellectual fashion than science or reasoned argument. But two developments have contributed to a broad argument in favor of ontological naturalism as the correct description of what sorts of things exist and are causally efficacious. First, there is a substantial history of the exploration and rejection of a variety of non-physical causal hypotheses in the history of science. Over the centuries, the possibility that some class of physical events could be caused by a supernatural source, a spiritual source, psychic energy, mental forces, or vital causes have been entertained and found wanting. Second, evidence for the law of the conservation of energy has provided significant support to physical closure, or the view that the natural world is a complete closed system in which physical events have physical causes. At the very least, atheists have argued, the ruins of so many supernatural explanations that have been found wanting in the history of science has created an enormous burden of proof that must be met before any claim about the existence of another worldly spiritual being can have credence. Ontological naturalism should not be seen as a dogmatic commitment, its defenders have insisted, but rather as a defeasible hypothesis that is supported by centuries of inquiry into the supernatural.
As scientific explanations have expanded to include more details about the workings of natural objects and laws, there has been less and less room or need for invoking God as an explanation. It is not clear that expansion of scientific knowledge disproves the existence of God in any formal sense any more than it has disproven the existence of fairies, the atheistic naturalist argues. However, physical explanations have increasingly rendered God explanations extraneous and anomalous. For example, when Laplace, the famous 18th century French mathematician and astronomer, presented his work on celestial mechanics to Napoleon, the Emperor asked him about the role of a divine creator in his system Laplace is reported to have said, “I have no need for that hypothesis.”
In many cases, science has shown that particular ancillary theses of traditional religious doctrine are mistaken. Blind, petitionary prayer has been investigated and found to have no effect on the health of its recipients, although praying itself may have some positive effects on the person who prayers (Benson, 2006). Geology, biology, and cosmology have discovered that the Earth formed approximately 3 billion years ago out of cosmic dust, and life evolved gradually over billions of years. The Earth, humans, and other life forms were not created in their present form some 6,000-10,000 years ago and the atheistic naturalist will point to numerous alleged miraculous events have been investigated and debunked.
Wide, positive atheism, the view that there are no gods whatsoever, might appear to be the most difficult atheistic thesis to defend, but ontological naturalists have responded that the case for no gods is parallel to the case for no elves, pixies, dwarves, fairies, goblins, or other creates. A decisive proof against every possible supernatural being is not necessary for the conclusion that none of them are real to be justified. The ontological naturalist atheist believes that once we have devoted sufficient investigation into enough particular cases and the general considerations about natural laws, magic, and supernatural entities, it becomes reasonable to conclude that the whole enterprise is an explanatory dead end for figuring out what sort of things there are in the world.
The disagreement between atheists and theists continues on two fronts. Within the arena of science and the natural world, some believers have persisted in arguing that material explanations are inadequate to explain all of the particular events and phenomena that we observe. Some philosophers and scientists have argued that for phenomena like consciousness, human morality, and some instances of biological complexity, explanations in terms of natural or evolutionary theses have not and will not be able to provide us with a complete picture. Therefore, the inference to some supernatural force is warranted. While some of these attempts have received social and political support, within the scientific community the arguments that causal closure is false and that God as a cause is a superior scientific hypothesis to naturalistic explanations have not received significant support. Science can cite a history of replacing spiritual, supernatural, or divine explanations of phenomena with natural ones from bad weather as the wrath of angry gods to disease as demon possession. The assumption for many is that there are no substantial reasons to doubt that those areas of the natural world that have not been adequately explained scientifically will be given enough time. ( Madden and Hare 1968, Papineau, Manson, Nielsen 2001, and Stenger.) Increasingly, with what they perceive as the failure of attempts to justify theism, atheists have moved towards naturalized accounts of religious belief that give causal and evolutionary explanations of the prevalence of belief. (See Atrans, Boyer, Dennett 2006)
Last edited:
I get the sense that you really do feel like you were making some sort of point.
Doesn’t seem incoherent. I thought it was straightforward. Basically, atheism is an absolute statement whereas science rarely if ever makes such statements.
I’d say atheism is the opposite of a belief system. It’s the denial of belief.
Does your belief system incorporate Zeus? Gilgamesh? Ra?
No, it really isn't.
Implicit atheism makes no statements at all, while the statement of explicit atheism is just "I'm not convinced" or "I see no need for that hypothesis."
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
A rose is far more specific than flower.
"Subjective evidence" is not evidence, since only you can perceive it. Therefore, you cannot present it in a court, or in a lab, or even do anything more than hope that your friends or whoever believes you, rather than thinks you're off your meds again.
And let's be clear, "no evidence" of anything, while it does not prove the thing does not exist, is most definitively no reason to suppose that it is. That is not a flaw, that's rational thinking.
You may "suppose" anything at all that you like, absent all the evidence in the universe. But you would be very, very wrong to accuse me of being closed-minded for not believing that you had actual proof of anything. How many wild-eyed dreamers have so far declared they've discovered the secret to eternal life, or perpetual energy, or proof of reincarnation, or the reality of ghosts? And the only thing they've ever missed, that they've never been able to produce, is evidence that anybody else can see.
I tell you honestly, I think we are all completely justified in being totally skeptical of such claims.
Which demands the question: why did Marcelo Gleiser lie so shamelessly?
Or is he sincerely clueless and hopelessly confused instead?
Either way, it was a complete disaster of a statement, and he should retract ASAP.
This is not pointing out why I am mistaken. I't merely stating you think I am, without explanation. I do not believe I am. To say "I am an X" is a self-identification.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You made a rather obvious mistake when you thought that evidence was required for a lack of belief. There may be many reasons for not believing something, but if I claim not to believe something, assuming that I am obvious, that is all the "evidence" that you need. You conflated not believing in something with a belief that something does not exist.
This does not make atheism inconsistent with science even if it is true, which is questionable. There is no evidence that Atheists consider science inconsistent with their beliefs. In fact virtually all atheists accept science as the best explanation for the nature of our physical existence, and many theists do not.
The reality is science is independent of any religious belief, and the problems arise when the belief system makes statements that are in conflict with science. Theism makes absolute statements, and in fact many theists consider science inconsistent with their beliefs.
Last edited:
I trusted that you would catch the mistake on your own. Mainly, I wanted to point out that you had not yet corrected yourself.
Maybe you are simply not well acquaintanced with atheism and gave too much ear to Gleiser's misdirections?
After all, you are saying that there is a "huge" matter of "self-identification" in atheism.
That is really not at all the case.
The inconsistency is a non-issue. Atheism is a statement. Science is a process. That’s all. It’s not a big deal and the OP is off his rocker.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Word salad and blatant obfuscation. This equivocation nonsense is used only to impress the ignorant, and give the appearance of being intellectually honest. Why do believers conveniently leave out WHY Atheist do not believe in the existence of any god(s)? Why do believers avoid stating that, "Atheist don't believe in God, because there is absolutely no objective evidence to support any such belief"? Why is this dependent clause always left out? The assertion also includes the reason. Do you expect any rational person to believe in any extraordinary claim, simply because you do? Is the belief in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Cookie Monster, a belief system? Is a belief in none of these also a belief system? Is the belief not to believe in any of these, also a belief system? Just more desperate and silly word games.
Just one objective bit of evidence(miracle, prophesy, violation of natural law, violation of cause and effect, a resurrection, evidence of an afterlife, etc.). Just one logically consistent and fallacy-free argument. Just one demonstrable objective example of the supernatural, the paranormal, the spiritual, or the astral plane. Produce this evidence and Atheism would end. Or, at least be logically questioned. Since believers believe without objective evidence, no amount of rational evidence could dissuade them from their belief. Even God Himself wouldn't stand a chance.
Libel?