Science and atheism inconsistent?

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's the easy position. There are no gnostic ones.

Not so. Gnosticism is a measure of one's confidence levels.

 

[Willamena]

Sorry, that still makes no sense. The post appeared to be a strawman of atheism. For some reason some theists seem to project the sort of belief that they have upon others.

Well, I know nothing about that. I'm an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I know nothing about that. I'm an atheist.

And not all atheists have the same beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

And not all atheists have the same beliefs.

They do have a shared identity, voiced as atheism.

 

[atanu]

I kinda have already, but to summarise...
I'm a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical one, since I'm allowing room for what I don't know.
I'm an agnostic atheist, rather than a gnostic one to allow room for what I don't know.

It is fine so far.

I'm an atheist rather than purely agnostic due to what the existing evidence suggests to me.

Regarding, the red highlight, would you say that this is still methological naturalism?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, that's the easy position. There are no gnostic ones.

No, true. I hesitated on that even as I typed it. Strong atheist, I guess.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It is fine so far.



Regarding, the red highlight, would you say that this is still methological naturalism?

No, only that atheism and methodological naturalism are compatible. They're not the same.

For example, it's entirely possible for a theist or an agnostic to be a methodological naturalist. To me, it's like a description of 'secular' in a political sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Regarding, the red highlight, would you say that this is still methological naturalism?

Wait...I might have misinterpreted your question. Perhaps you meant 'am I breaking principles of methodological naturalism in claiming atheism'.

No, I don't believe so. Those principles would suggest to me that a supernatural being is untestable, and so science neither proves nor disproves God. However, they do not suggest that I should limit my opinion on things only to what can be scientifically proven or disproven. I can use other evidence and rationalism to draw conclusions on things.

What I should not do is confuse my opinion, conjecture, etc, with scientific evidence. I don't believe I do.

 

[atanu]

Wait...I might have misinterpreted your question. Perhaps you meant 'am I breaking principles of methodological naturalism in claiming atheism'.

No, I don't believe so. Those principles would suggest to me that a supernatural being is untestable, and so science neither proves nor disproves God. However, they do not suggest that I should limit my opinion on things only to what can be scientifically proven or disproven. I can use other evidence and rationalism to draw conclusions on things.

What I should not do is confuse my opinion, conjecture, etc, with scientific evidence. I don't believe I do.

I can easily agree since you qualify your atheism with the text shown in bold above.

It was pleasure interacting with you. Thank you.

 

[PureX]

It is not a fool's errand against those who consider the Biblical mythology literal,...

To debate/argue with a fool is a fool's errand.

...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.

The number of people who can't tell the difference between a story and the ideals the story is meant to convey is debatable, and mostly irrelevant, if they don't want to know.

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.

They don't care about what science observes as much as they care about the experiential value they gain from their faith. And no one can explain to them why they should.

 

[PureX]

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.

What does consistency have to do with it? It's about the value added, not the consistency. But even if; are you suggesting that the billions of humans that trust in the god-ideal aren't being "consistently" rewarded in terms of the value added to their life experience by doing so?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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?

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

If Honda made all the motorcycles in the world, all motorcycle buyers would know that only ONE company makes motorcycles. Therefore, if only ONE God created all man in His image, then spiritually all man would know that only one God created them. Lets examine the basic logic, or rationale. We know that there are many different God(s) that are representative of many different cultures. Therefore we would expect many different depictions of God(s), from different cultures. This is exactly what we observe. So the only logical conclusion, is that all culture creates their own culture-specific God(s). Since cultures are made of humans, then it is humans that create God(s). Where is this logic flawed? How does relativism address this line of reasoning? If you think that all God beliefs are relative, then try convincing the Westboro Baptist Church to start teaching Zoroastrianism and Mazdeism to its congregation? See how well that goes. Relativism, I think not.

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?

Just more nonsense. Water by any other name is still water. There is only ONE water. It is defined by its intrinsic properties and chemical composition, not by its name. It is totally irrelevant what language you use to describe it or its 4 phases. Maybe you can give me two names(in whatever language you choose) that both describe water. One name describes fake, unreal, or imitation water? And, the other describes only real water? I didn't think so. You don't really believe that if water is pronounced differently in another languages, that there must be different types of chemical water, or "many waters"? Why do you believe that water and ""el aqua" are not the same thing? Finally, the words we use to identify real things, are not in themselves the real things they are identifying. The word that is used to identify an apple, is not the apple. Please look up concretism and reification fallacy, before you continuing this poor line of reasoning. Secondly, there is no evidence that a God(s) exists in reality, but there is a mountain of evidence that water exist in reality. So now you are making an equivocation error as well.

There are many different types of Relativisms, including scientific. But on the whole, science does not make any conciliatory changes to its methodology or its objectivity, based on anyone's personal perspective, moral judgements, or on the traditions of people and their culture. I agree that science cannot claim absolute certainty about anything, so please what exactly is the significant role that relativism plays in science? I'm curious, how do you have a geographical experience with water?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

Then why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of making glib and insensitive remarks? Including all your cryptic "maybe's"? You might also like to point out which of my questions were irrational or vindictive? So to adhere to your request. Why do you think Atheists do not believe in the existence of God(s)?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That's a very wimpy approach and it completely ignores history.

I notice you hail as an atheist... so what is a "less wimpy" approach in your opinion? Denying evidence of God (if it were actually to be presented) and still asserting either that God doesn't exist, or that you still don't believe? If the evidence were entirely compelling, then yours would end up being the wimpy stance. Because you'd be wrong.

Now... don't get me wrong... I am the absolute last person to even remotely believe that theists may somehow/someday produce actual evidence of God's existence, and I am entirely convinced right now that no god of any kind exists. But if somehow evidence of an undeniable nature were presented, and it were inter-subjectively verifiable, reproducible, testable, etc. well... then to continue to deny at that point would make one a fool.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of making glib and insensitive remarks? Including all your cryptic "maybe's"? You might also like to point out which of my questions were irrational or vindictive? So to adhere to your request.

Rambling rant posts are not worth responding to. The maybes were yours and of course I rejected to them, because they did not reflect what I posted. It is your glib and insensative remarks that I refused to respond to with good reason.

Why do you think Atheists do not believe in the existence of God(s)?

There are various reasons why atheists and other secular humanists do not believe in God(s) primarily, because most atheists do not believe there is any evidence for God(s) to have a reason to believe in God(s). Some, but not all, Zen Buddhists are raised in the culture and belief system that does not believe in God(s), or some atheists become Zen Buddhism, because they share their world view without Gods. There are other cultures like in China where a percentage of the population are raised in atheist communities that do not believe in God(s).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The belief in atheism, whether true or false, is in harmony with science.

This is such a strange statement. Just what, pray tell, is "the belief in atheism?"

You say "Hey there Mr. atheist, God exists!", and I say "I don't believe you."

That's my atheism. Where is there "belief" on my part involved at all? How can my disbelief of your claim be "true" or "false?" It can only be "true" that I do, indeed disbelieve. But my actual state of disbelief cannot logically be ascribed the attribute "true" or "false." It makes absolutely no sense.

If evidence were presented that was inter-subjectively verifiable, testable/reproducible and basically could not be denied without deceiving oneself, then I am the type of nonbeliever whose mind would be swayed at that point. Not that I think you (or anyone else) has a shot in hell of producing such evidence, but its not like I would reject everything outright.

Analogously, if someone actually produced a Big Foot cadaver, and it was examined by professionals and found to be the remains of what was once a cohesive, living organism with DNA divergent from that of humans to a speciating degree... well... that would speak for itself. I also don't think that anyone has a shot in hell producing that kind of evidence for Big Foot... but again, I wouldn't deny that type of evidence if it were presented.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is such a strange statement. Just what, pray tell, is "the belief in atheism?"

You say "Hey there Mr. atheist, God exists!", and I say "I don't believe you."

Not a strange statement at all. Simply; The belief in atheism, whether true or false, is in harmony with science.

I am not commenting here concerning why atheists believe as they do. I also do not address whether atheism is true nor false.

I believe it is fairly well documented that by far most atheists believe their belief is consistent and in agreement in science, ie the topic of the thread.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not a strange statement at all. Simply; The belief in atheism, whether true or false, is in harmony with science.

I am not commenting here concerning why atheists believe as they do. I also do not address whether atheism is true nor false.

I believe it is fairly well documented that by far most atheists believe their belief is consistent and in agreement in science, ie the topic of the thread.

You apparently didn't even read my reply to you.

Do you think it makes sense to ascribe the words "true" or "false" to atheism? More succinctly (to try and get rid of the problem of "what labels mean" here): Do you think it makes sense to ascribe the word "true" or "false" to the disbelief that I have of your ideas of god(s)? Can my disbelief even be "true?" Can my disbelief even be "false?"

 

[viole]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Well, I am a philosophical naturalist. Which entails atheism.

Now, how is philosophical naturalism incompatible with science? Can you imagine methological naturalism negating the philosophical one?

How does it work?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

ecco:
Ah, yes, let's disparage the "traditional theist belief systems based on ancient scripture". Out with the old, in with the new. But not too new. Bahai is just right. Like the right porridge.​

Not the topic and did not reflect anything I have posted in this thread.

You stated:

I do consider the atheist view more rational and logical than that of the traditional theist belief systems based on ancient scripture like Christianity.​

You, a theist, put belief in ancient traditional Christianity on a rung beneath atheism. You did not say something similar about Bahai. The implication is that Bahai is superior to both.

ecco:
Why do you believe atheists have a need to satisfy some spiritual needs?​

Some may, and I made no such generalization.

Really? Did you not write...

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.​

You made the comment and now you can't explain why you believe atheists have a need to satisfy some spiritual needs.

They are human like everyone else. Some do join UU and Zen and know them personally.

That's your response "they are human"? And, since you are a human who needs to satisfy some spiritual needs, you egotistically conclude that all humans need to satisfy some spiritual needs.

I made no generalization, and your vindictive sarcasm does not contribute to the dialogue.

You don't consider "all humans" to be a generalziation?

Some if not many are loners in rebellion against tradition religious beliefs, and atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers.

You don't consider "Some if not many" and "most" to be generalizations?

You don't like my responses and refer to them as "vindictive sarcasm" and state that they do not "contribute to the dialogue". However, you are entirely comfortable with saying that atheists need to satisfy some spiritual needs. You are entirely comfortable with making sweeping demeaning and factually incorrect statements like "atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers".




I could be generous and chalk up your comments to ignorance. But that would not be correct. You have been on this forum for two years. I'm sure I'm not the first atheist to tell you that you are (redacted).