Does science support Atheism, positively?

[FunctionalAtheist]

Citations please as requested in the OP.

Regards

Please read what I've said in throughout the thread and look at the links I provided. I never said science 'positively' supports atheism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well one thing science brings to the table is the obvious and total lack of any type of involved deity from all that is observable and testable. It certainly confirms what Athiests put forth.

Citations as per OP please.

Regards

 

[CynthiaCypher]

What's your theory of truth, Cynthia? Do you subscribe to a correspondence theory? The pragmatic theory? Some other theory?

To me all knowledge is provisional and hypothetical. We can only come to a "close" approximation of what is real, if that.

 

[Sunstone]

To me all knowledge is provisional and hypothetical. We can only come to a "close" approximation of what is real, if that.

Well, we agree on something then. But you didn't actually answer my question.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

To me all knowledge is provisional and hypothetical. We can only come to a "close" approximation of what is real, if that.

As Hawking called it, "model-dependent realism".

"[Model-dependent realism] is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth."

"There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science."

"According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation ... then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

"It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied."

"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."

http://physics.about.com/od/stephenhawking/f/ModelDependentRealism.htm

 

[CynthiaCypher]

As Hawking called it, "model-dependent realism".

I never had a name for it. Thanks.

 

[paarsurrey]

I never said science 'positively' supports atheism.

Thanks and regards

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well, we agree on something then. But you didn't actually answer my question.

I guess I haven't fully adopted any one theory as of yet and it is something I am still looking studying.

I don't know what to call what I believe. I do believe the world is real but I also believe it is an idea. I am a Gnostic.

 

[Sunstone]

I guess I haven't fully adopted any one theory as of yet and it is something I am still looking studying.

I don't know what to call what I believe. I do believe the world is real but I also believe it is an idea. I am a Gnostic.

OK. Thanks! I was just curious.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

"[Model-dependent realism] is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth."

"There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science."

"According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation ... then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

"It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied."

"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."

That reminds me a lot of what Karl Popper said about theory and verisimilitude. I need to read more Hawkings.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Thanks and regards

No problem. Any time I can take a few minutes to tell you what I haven't said, just let me know.

 

[paarsurrey]

We all must make an assumption, either we accept the basic assumptions of science and believe what we see, or we accept revelation/authority and believe what we are told and what we read.

Can’t we live with an assumption in science in matters relating to our secular life and with other assumption pertaining to our ethical, moral and spiritual matters?

This is like separating “church” and “state” for life.

Secular (based on science) and spiritual (based on Revelation) models could work in their orbits like sun and moon and earth; never colliding with one another.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Can’t we live with an assumption in science in matters relating to our secular life and with other assumption pertaining to our ethical, moral and spiritual matters?

This is like separating “church” and “state” for life.

Secular (based on science) and spiritual (based on Revelation) models could work in their orbits like sun and moon and earth; never colliding with one another.

It's called NOMA. Nonoverlapping Magisteria, not many "New Atheist" believe in it. They want to cross the land in the sand.

Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping Magisteria," 1997

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Can’t we live with an assumption in science in matters relating to our secular life and with other assumption pertaining to our ethical, moral and spiritual matters?

This is like separating “church” and “state” for life.

Secular (based on science) and spiritual (based on Revelation) models could work in their orbits like sun and moon and earth; never colliding with one another.

If you know that beating your wife causes activation of her pain receptors and wounds her psychologically as well as physically, would you follow another "assumption" that says beating her is morally acceptable?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Can’t we live with an assumption in science in matters relating to our secular life and with other assumption pertaining to our ethical, moral and spiritual matters?

This is like separating “church” and “state” for life.

Secular (based on science) and spiritual (based on Revelation) models could work in their orbits like sun and moon and earth; never colliding with one another.

Yes you can. That was my third. Two standards of knowledge. That's one too many for me.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If you know that beating your wife causes activation of her pain receptors and wounds her psychological as well as physically, would you follow another "assumption" that says beating her is morally acceptable?

Then I could say that science is confirming my spiritual and moral conviction to not to cause harm to a loved one.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Then I could say that science is confirming my spiritual and moral conviction to not to cause harm to a loved one.

Only if your current spiritual model agrees with the scientific model. What's to say they won't conflict? Or is your spiritual model merely derivative of scientific discovery?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Only if your current spiritual model agrees with the scientific model. What's to say they won't conflict? Or is your spiritual model merely derivative of scientific discovery?

I don't consider the Golden Rule to be a scientific discovery. I think it was well established way before the scientific method was a glimmer in Bacon's mind.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's hard to confirm the absence of a claim. I would wager no.

However, none validate gods.

Oh, and it's "atheism". It's not a proper noun.

I would agree with that, but would like to say that the lack of scientific evidence means nothing and I'm not sure if you did/didn't apply against that. God is a spiritual concept, and science is of physical nature, so it would be like asking a question dealing with biology to an astronomer.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

God is a spiritual concept, and science is of physical nature, so it would be like asking a question dealing with biology to an astronomer.

Or like trying to analyse Shakespeare's Hamlet by the principles of geology.