atheism = unscientific

[Shtef]

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

 

[Halcyon]

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

That's true. Agnosticism is the most reasonable belief system, in that essentially no belief is involved concerning deity at all, its existance nor non-existance is really contemplated as the adherants believe we cannot know either way.

But true atheism would be the total lack of any belief concerning deity, and would occur only in a culture where the concept of deity does not exist at all. This version would be scientific as it does not involve the rejection of a possibility without sufficient evidence.

However, atheism as we know it occurs when people acquire the concept of what deity is (and in our cultures it is impossible not to have a concept of deity) and then reject it. This of course is as unscientific as accepting it, since there is no evidence either way.
Weak atheism is the most reasonable form, as those who have this belief doubt the existance of God, but still have enough sense to know that they cannot be 100% certain of deity's non-existance.

Strong atheism is an irrational faith based belief system where the followers have deluded themselves into believing that they know for certain that deity does not exist. These are the religious fundamentalists of the non-theist world.

 

[sparc872]

I agree with Halcyon. Weak atheism can and should be considered scientific. The vast majority of scientific evidence to date points away from the existence of a god therefore, a good theory would to say that there is no God. Very similar to saying that there is gravity because evidence points to it. I understand that the existence of God is not testable, but when we examine the natural world and see no room for God there it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God is nonexistent.

I see strong atheism as taken just as much on faith as theism. Weak atheism is much closer to agnosticism, just leaning more towards the nonexistence of a deity.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I agree, Halcyon.

Also, Shtef, in the scientific world, a lack of evidence for something also constitutes its nonexistence, which is why science also considers leprechauns, unicorns, and fugglyploofs to be nonexistent. Doesn't sound a bit silly to you to say, "You say unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence for them, and therefore I cannot prove or even support their existence, but I'dlike to see you try to prove they DON'T exist!!"

In general, proving a negative is impossible. You cannot prove, for instance, that a certain event will never occur. Because if it is true that that event will never occur, then it will never occur and be able to be analyzed. However, people who believe that the event will occur will say that it just hasn't occurred yet. Does that make any sense to you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's true. Agnosticism is the most reasonable belief system, ...

Strong atheism is an irrational faith based belief ...

Properly understood, agnosticism is a methodology.
Strong atheism is no more irrational than induction.

 

[Halcyon]

Properly understood, agnosticism is a methodology.

That's better, it didn't feel right calling agnosticism a belief system, but i couldn't think of the correct phrase. Thanks.

Strong atheism is no more irrational than induction.

I disagree, claiming to know for certain that deity does not exist is as irrational as any form of theism.
Concluding that God does not exist due to lack of supportive evidence is entirely rational.

Drawing a conclusion and claiming certain knowledge are two entirely different things.

 

[mr.guy]

Strong atheism is no more irrational than induction.

But in deference to the OP, how can any conclusion that doesn't firstly proclaim ambivalence possibly be rational?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I disagree, claiming to know for certain that ...

While I'm sure that no strawman was intended, I'm equally sure that science rarely claims that it knows a posteriori truths "for certain". The atheist who says "there is no God" is saying no more than a zoologist who says "there are no Pixies". Both are speaking in the vernacular and claiming: given all available evidence, the belief in {X} is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Both would advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available.

 

[Halcyon]

While I'm sure that no strawman was intended, I'm equally sure that science rarely claims that it knows a posteriori truths "for certain". The atheist who says "there is no God" is saying no more than a zoologist who says "there are no Pixies". Both are speaking in the vernacular and claiming: given all available evidence, the belief in {X} is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Both would advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available.

Exactly Jay, i couldn't possibly agree more. But what you are describing isn't strong atheism as i understand it.

A strong atheist will never "advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available" as this asserts that there may be the possibility of deity's existance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But in deference to the OP, how can any conclusion that doesn't firstly proclaim ambivalence possibly be rational?

Far better to be deferrential towards the evidence than ambivalent towards the question.

Indeed, ambivalence is too highly regarded. Were I to to tell you that I saw a large bird with an 8-foot wing span your response should, and I believe would, differ substantialy from the one you would have had I said "horse" instead of "bird".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Exactly Jay, i couldn't possibly agree more. But what you are describing isn't strong atheism as i understand it.

A strong atheist will never ...

With the possible exception of the very immature and dogmatic atheist, I believe you to be factually wrong. Do you doubt that a Richard Dawkins is aware of epistemological limits? Do you doubt that he is a stong atheist?

Most strong atheists that I've met are fully aware of the limits of their epistemology, and simple consider appending such an acknowledgement to every ontological statement unnecessary. Once again, I would encourage people to read

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (2000)​

The strong athiest claim is in no way dissimilar to that made by Dr. Forrest when she writes:

It is clear that the ontology of philosophical naturalism is itself theoretical in the scientific sense: it is an explanation, albeit much more general than a scientific one, of what is warranted as knowledge, why we do not have certain other kinds of "knowledge," and why we therefore cannot lay cognitive claim to ontological categories such as the supernatural. It is not a categorical rejection of the supernatural, but a constantly tentative rejection of it in light of the heretofore consistent lack of confirmation of it. And rather than accepting methodological naturalism a priori as the only reliable methodology for acquiring knowledge about the cosmos, it accepts it rather as a methodology the reliability of which has been established historically by its success and the absence of any successful alternative method for acquiring knowledge about either the natural world or a supernatural order. The general rule for philosophical naturalism is this: the more of the cosmos which science is able to explain, the less warrant there is for explanations which include a divine or transcendent principle as a causal factor.

< -- snip -->​

The gaps in scientific knowledge which have historically functioned as entry points for divine creativity are considerably narrower than they were just a generation ago. Every expansion in scientific knowledge has left in its wake a more shrunken space of possibilities from which to infer the plausibility of supernaturalism. Science is yielding an increasingly expansive and supportable picture of continuity between humans and other life forms, and between living organisms and the rest of the cosmos from whose elements, such as the carbon produced during the evolution of stars, these organisms are constituted. The more expansive the continuity, the firmer the foundation for the inference from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism, and the less plausible the non-naturalistic explanations.

Since philosophical naturalism is an outgrowth of methodological naturalism, and methodological naturalism has been validated by its epistemological and technological success, then every expansion in scientific understanding lends it further confirmation. For example, should life be genuinely created in the laboratory from the non-organic elements which presently comprise living organisms, this discovery would add tremendous weight to philosophical naturalism. Should cognitive science and neurobiology succeed conclusively in explaining the phenomenon of human consciousness, mind-body dualism would be completely undermined, and philosophical naturalism would again be immeasurably strengthened.[45]

For philosophical naturalism, this is better than logical entailment, which would make it the only permissible conclusion of methodological naturalism. Relationships of logical necessity need not reflect any state of affairs in the world, whereas expansions of empirically verifiable knowledge always do. The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.​

 

[Halcyon]

Perhaps then i need to re-evalute how i personally categorise the different sorts of atheist i come across then.

Traditionally i have accepted that a strong atheist was someone who rejected the concept of deity to the extent of proclaiming with certainty a positive assertion of its non-existance - which is of course highly illogical. What would you term such a person?

I also believe that the number of immature and dogmatic atheists is much higher than you suggest. Most people i know here in England are atheist, and i have encountered many atheists who match my description. Perhaps in America (you are American aren't you?) there are simply fewer atheists and so you encounter these, what i call strong atheists, less frequently?

Believe it or not i agree entirely with the article you part-quoted. I believe in evolution, in the big bang and that the mind if a product of the body. Yet i am still a theist, a theist that does not rely on supernatural occurances to base my faith upon.
Perhaps this is where my cynicism of strong atheism comes from, as all the arguments in favour of atheism i agree with, and i cannot imagine how anyone could ever possibly assert with any certainty that the form of deity i believe in does not exist.

 

[Smoke]

Strong atheism is an irrational faith based belief system where the followers have deluded themselves into believing that they know for certain that deity does not exist. These are the religious fundamentalists of the non-theist world.

But if disbelief in something for which there is no evidence is an "irrational faith based belief system," what can we say about those who believe in something for which there is no evidence?

That is, if disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is irrational, it remains that belief in the Tooth Fairy is more irrational still.

But I don't agree that disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is irrational at all. Disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is in keeping with all the evidence we have.

Likewise, we can say with confidence that if there is a deity, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that deity conforms to human conceptions of it; many mystics of all the great religions have said the same. John Scotus Eriugena, for example, said that in truth God does not exist, since God is beyond existence. If there is a deity, our conceptions of it are but metaphors for something we do not and cannot understand, and it would be a fundamental error to take those metaphors as literal fact.

It doesn't matter if one prays to Allah, or to the Christian Trinity, or to the Norse gods and goddesses, or to the sun and the moon, or to water spirits, or to no god at all. But the minute one imagines that the reality of the deity corresponds to the image in one's mind, one has fallen into the basest idolatry.

If there is a deity, theism and atheism are equally good metaphors for deity, but neither theism nor atheism can be literally true.

If there is no deity, atheism is literally true, and theism is literally false.

Either way, theism seems more likely to lead one into pernicious error.

 

[Halcyon]

But if disbelief in something for which there is no evidence is an "irrational faith based belief system," what can we say about those who believe in something for which there is no evidence?

That's true, but not what i'm saying. The form of atheism i'm talking about takes it one step beyond disbelief into the realm of belief in non-existance, which is different.

Likewise, we can say with confidence that if there is a deity, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that deity conforms to human conceptions of it; many mystics of all the great religions have said the same. John Scotus Eriugena, for example, said that in truth God does not exist, since God is beyond existence. If there is a deity, our conceptions of it are but metaphors for something we do not and cannot understand, and it would be a fundamental error to take those metaphors as literal fact.

That's very good, and is something that i would agree with. However, in a very practical sense it is impossible, as humans always conceptualise everything - its the way our brains work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I also believe that the number of immature and dogmatic atheists is much higher than you suggest. Most people i know here in England are atheist, and i have encountered many atheists who match my description. Perhaps in America (you are American aren't you?) there are simply fewer atheists and so you encounter these, what i call strong atheists, less frequently?

That is entirely possible. Thanks.

 

[Kungfuzed]

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

What if someone started out on the other side of the tracks, being very religious, and spent years searching for God. And after doing everything religion taught him for years and was still unable to establish any kind of contact or evidence for His existance. Then decided to research in the other direction and came to the conclusion that there is no God, would that still be considered unscientific?

 

[gnostic]

If you don't see, hear or feel God in your every daily life, then that is, in itself, proof that there are no God or gods.

In the book of Job, God boasted to Job that he control everything, such as the sun, sea, rain, storm, etc. What I have seen so far I see nature going through its natural course, without any divine hand controlling any natural events. That in itself is proof that there is no God or gods.

As to the atheism = unscientific. Atheism has nothing to do with science. It just seem appropriate for scientists to be not be biased with belief in the supernatural or be occupied with such belief, when it comes to scientifically observing, measuring, testing, etc.

 

[Comet]

I find this debate interesting, though I don't see what any post here has to do with answering the OP...... please continue (just subscribing to thread)....

Though, what do your different "classificationss" of Atheism have to do with the OP?

 

[uumckk16]

If you don't see, hear or feel God in your every daily life, then that is, in itself, proof that there are no God or gods.

Or maybe you're just not looking. But I see what you're saying, and if that's proof enough for you, then...cool.

In the book of Job, God boasted to Job that he control everything, such as the sun, sea, rain, storm, etc. What I have seen so far I see nature going through its natural course, without any divine hand controlling any natural events. That in itself is proof that there is no God or gods.

Uhhh...disproving something in the Bible doesn't mean disproving God. Not all theists are Christian...

 

[Halcyon]

Uhhh...disproving something in the Bible doesn't mean disproving God. Not all theists are Christian...

Yeah, i was gonna say that. It seems quite a common thing to do though, its not like gnostic was the first.

People seem to assume that if the Judeo-Christian God doesn't make sense, then somehow that invalidates all forms of deity, which is just nonsensical, IMO.