Science and atheism inconsistent?

[lewisnotmiller]

Regarding this, I will like to draw your attention to the following article.

Atheism | Naturalism.org

That article states :

The articles in this section place atheism in the broader context of naturalism, suggesting that atheists might profitably expand their horizons beyond mere disbelief into a positive endorsement of a naturalistic worldview. Atheists strongly identifying as such, or those not in a market for a comprehensive worldview, will decline this invitation, which is fine.

In other words, atheism and philosophical naturalism are not the same. Regardless of that, no-one speaks for atheism as a whole anyway. Some atheists would like to think they do, no doubt.

Regarding Dr. Gleiser ‘s view, his statement about atheistic stand “I don't believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.', suggests that he is not conflating. At least, I think so.

Dr Gleiser can make whatever claims about atheism he wants. But all science starts with a hypothesis. That is not problematic. It's problematic if that hypothesis impacts on the methods and conclusions drawn.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since you only commented on the "big words" I assume you agree it was: "drawn out for the sake of trying to sound profound."

No, the only people who would have trouble with my vocabulary are those that did not graduate from high school.

 

[shunyadragon]

Very confusing and, at this point, droppable.

No, disagreement should not be confusing.

 

[PureX]

Likely not whole justification, but it is true that science is consistent and compatible with atheism, and ancient traditional theist beliefs are often inconsistent and in conflict with science.

Applying scientific falsification to religious mythology is a fool's errand. And science can tell us nothing about the nature or existence of "God". So it offers no more support to the atheist than it does to the theist.

 

[atanu]

That article states :
In other words, atheism and philosophical naturalism are not the same. Regardless of that, no-one speaks for atheism as a whole anyway. Some atheists would like to think they do, no doubt..

I have no doubt that philosophical naturalism and atheism are not same. However, the article also says: Atheism - disbelief in God (the Judeo-Christian-Muslim deity) or any sort of supernatural god or gods - is a direct conclusion or corollary of naturalism.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe ah . . . and maybe . . .

You most be answering someone else, but not anything I posted.

Maybe it was a ghost poster that was asking me if I felt better after my rant. Is it because I asked you to address the points I raised in my rant, that has caused this feigned memory loss? Unless there is another "Shunyadragon" clearly visible in the post, I'm afraid I'm speaking to you. So when your memory and honesty returns, maybe you would like to address my post, and answer my questions. Or, will you just keep deflecting, obfuscating, and avoiding, with more silly flippant remarks to mask the obvious?

Can you explain why there are over 4000 different Gods, created in the image of its culture? Maybe you can explain why by definition, if there can only be one God, why each culture has their own? If God created all man, then all man should know only one God. But if all societies of man create their own God, then there should be many Gods. So, is there one God or many Gods today? How do we know which God is the real God? What if you've picked the wrong God? Would this be considered evidence?

 

[PureX]

Can you explain why there are over 4000 different Gods, created in the image of its culture?

Sure, it's the same reason that there are over 4000 different words for 'water', through almost as many different cultures and time periods. The phenomenon of water is a fairly universal experience, and yet the cultural, linguistic, geographical, and even spiritual experiences of it cause a whole range of different words, symbols, stories and expressions of it.

Maybe you can explain why by definition, if there can only be one God, why each culture has their own?

It's called 'relativism'. It's been a significant factor in science for quite a long time now.

If God created all man, then all man should know only one God.

I'm pretty sure you cannot explain the logic behind that conclusion.

But if all societies of man create their own God, then there should be many Gods. So, is there one God or many Gods today? How do we know which God is the real God? What if you've picked the wrong God? Would this be considered evidence?

Is there one water, or many waters? How do we know which water is the real one? Is it the liquid one, or the solid one, or the vaporous one? Is it the one called "water", or the one called "aqua"? And if we cannot answer these questions 'objectively', then water must not exist, ... right?

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe it was a ghost poster that was asking me if I felt better after my rant. Is it because I asked you to address the points I raised in my rant, that has caused this feigned memory loss? Unless there is another "Shunyadragon" clearly visible in the post, I'm afraid I'm speaking to you. So when your memory and honesty returns, maybe you would like to address my post, and answer my questions. Or, will you just keep deflecting, obfuscating, and avoiding, with more silly flippant remarks to mask the obvious?

Can you explain why there are over 4000 different Gods, created in the image of its culture? Maybe you can explain why by definition, if there can only be one God, why each culture has their own? If God created all man, then all man should know only one God. But if all societies of man create their own God, then there should be many Gods. So, is there one God or many Gods today? How do we know which God is the real God? What if you've picked the wrong God? Would this be considered evidence?

It was not a ghost poster. I do not answer vindictive rant questions. I address specific rational question, and again . . . Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe ah . . . and maybe . . .

You most be answering someone else, but not anything I posted.

Ask me specific relevant rational questions to what I post and I will answer.

 

[shunyadragon]

Applying scientific falsification to religious mythology is a fool's errand. And science can tell us nothing about the nature or existence of "God". So it offers no more support to the atheist than it does to the theist.

It is not a fool's errand against those who consider the Biblical mythology literal, which includes many or most Christians, and the line of the mythical origin of the doctrine and dogma of traditional Christianity, the anthropomorphic beliefs of a hands on God, and mythology of miracle workers does give support to the atheist whether you like it or not. Yes, as I have said many times science cannot tell us anything concerning whether God exists or not.

The fact that many if not most Christians in some way believe their belief is not consistent with science is the elephant in the room.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I agree. Now, would you say that many atheists came to their belief without research and testing the belief/disbelief?
Would you say that many atheists came to their belief due to their desire for sense of community and belonging particularly their cultural and familiar heritage?

Which approach would be more rational?

I do consider the atheist view more rational and logical than that of the traditional theist belief systems based on ancient scripture like Christianity. Atheists, agnostics, and other humanists are often in rebellion against traditional beliefs. If they seek a sense of belonging and community they will often turn to like minded institutions like the UU or Zen Buddhism for a more spiritual approach. Some if not many are loners in rebellion against tradition religious beliefs, and most atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers.

Actually Judaism is distinctly different than Christianity concerning atheism and agnosticism. Judaism has a strong cultural tribal attachment and pragmatism toward belief within Judaism, and many Jews are atheist and agnostic within the Jewish communities, in part because of the intellectual bent of many Jews.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have no doubt that philosophical naturalism and atheism are not same. However, the article also says: Atheism - disbelief in God (the Judeo-Christian-Muslim deity) or any sort of supernatural god or gods - is a direct conclusion or corollary of naturalism.

So?
Even if (and it's a big if) you can conflate naturalism with philosophical naturalism, you just said 'philosophical naturalists are atheists'.
That hardly seems controversial.
I'm just suggesting that it's possible for other people to be atheists too. Like me.

 

[Bear Wild]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Sorry I missed this one. An atheism is about a religious stand that one does not believe in a god not that they do not have beliefs. It included a huge number of people with very different religious attitudes and says nothing about believing rejecting beliefs, just that that person does not believe in a or more gods or goddesses. Atheists clearly believe in many things they cannot explain completely and most accept science without any difficulty. Atheism is a statement about religious belief and has nothing to do with science. Science cannot exclude a god or many gods that one wants to believe in just as different theists cannot prove that other gods or goddesses do or do not exist. You can be an atheist, pantheist, agnostic, polytheist or any other religious view and still be consistent with science since your beliefs are outside the realm of science. The desire to make atheism as a unified group of people is just as ridiculous as saying that all theists are a unified group. Just look at the range in Christianity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sure, it's the same reason that there are over 4000 different words for 'water', through almost as many different cultures and time periods. The phenomenon of water is a fairly universal experience, and yet the cultural, linguistic, geographical, and even spiritual experiences of it cause a whole range of different words, symbols, stories and expressions of it.
It's called 'relativism'. It's been a significant factor in science for quite a long time now.
I'm pretty sure you cannot explain the logic behind that conclusion.
Is there one water, or many waters? How do we know which water is the real one? Is it the liquid one, or the solid one, or the vaporous one? Is it the one called "water", or the one called "aqua"? And if we cannot answer these questions 'objectively', then water must not exist, ... right?

Are you suggesting the concept of God is held in as consistent a manner as water?
We can reduce water to its component parts (ie. 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen) and that is 100% matched across all 4000+ words for water.

Are you sure this is a good comparison for the human construct 'God'??

That seems a stretch, to put it mildly.

 

[Bear Wild]

That article states :


In other words, atheism and philosophical naturalism are not the same. Regardless of that, no-one speaks for atheism as a whole anyway. Some atheists would like to think they do, no doubt.



Dr Gleiser can make whatever claims about atheism he wants. But all science starts with a hypothesis. That is not problematic. It's problematic if that hypothesis impacts on the methods and conclusions drawn.

Thank you for showing that site. Religious naturalists are atheists ( although there are some that approach a pantheist like view) but all atheists are not all religious naturalists. The religious naturalist movement creates a full moral and ethical belief with its own view of metaphysics which is quite complex. The difference is that it bases the belief entirely on the natural world rather than on a supernatural being, but it is no less in depth in its approach to religion. There are several excellent books on the topic and I find the writings of Donald Crosby to be particularly enlightening.

 

[ecco]

Since you only commented on the "big words" I assume you agree it was: "drawn out for the sake of trying to sound profound."

No, the only people who would have trouble with my vocabulary are those that did not graduate from high school.

YOUR vocabulary? I was commenting on one excerpt from an article you copy/pasted.

The link you gave was to:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH4g
That page says the author is:
Matt McCormick
California State University, Sacramento

Are you Matt McCormick?

 

[ecco]

Applying scientific falsification to religious mythology is a fool's errand. And science can tell us nothing about the nature or existence of "God". So it offers no more support to the atheist than it does to the theist.

Would you also state:
And science can tell us nothing about the nature or existence of gods, like Zeus, Odin, Oba, or Pinga?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thank you for showing that site. Religious naturalists are atheists ( although there are some that approach a pantheist like view) but all atheists are not all religious naturalists. The religious naturalist movement creates a full moral and ethical belief with its own view of metaphysics which is quite complex. The difference is that it bases the belief entirely on the natural world rather than on a supernatural being, but it is no less in depth in its approach to religion. There are several excellent books on the topic and I find the writings of Donald Crosby to be particularly enlightening.

For me, I'd push back on being called a materialist, or a philosophical naturalists, but would happily call myself a methodological naturalist, as well as an atheist. Religious naturalism seems to me to be more a question of focus than belief, so (again) I'd suggest there is variance amongst atheists.

Seem about right?

 

[ecco]

And science can tell us nothing about the nature or existence of "God"

If, by "God", you mean the Judeo Christian creator described in what is referred to as the Old Testament, then science can indeed tell us much. For instance, we know that he did not flood the entire earth 4367 years ago resulting in the death of almost all animals, men, women, children, and fetuses.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes. But many atheists claim to own science and scientific method.

Many theist claim their god (or goddess) is the only true god. At least polytheists are more open minded. No one owns the scientific method, they only use it to understand the world we live in.

 

[Bear Wild]

For me, I'd push back on being called a materialist, or a philosophical naturalists, but would happily call myself a methodological naturalist, as well as an atheist. Religious naturalism seems to me to be more a question of focus than belief, so (again) I'd suggest there is variance amongst atheists.

Seem about right?

You have it right in my opinion but I have recently been reading more of the works of the philosophical naturalists and religious naturalist and find it interesting. In either way the focus is on the world that exists rather than the imagined world. Yes we cannot prove there is not god or a goddess but at the same time if there is a god or goddess it would seem that they could be a little more revealing but that is just my take. Of course you can always take the view that the god or goddess or both are the natural world like the pantheists believe. In any way our would is as amazing and complex as we need the way I see it.