Does science support Atheism, positively?

[paarsurrey]

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

I agree with you.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Science doesn't support atheism necessarily just as it isn't the antithesis of religion, as many seem to think it is. It is simply that, since no experiment can be performed either way to determine whether there is or is not a God(s), it doesn't deal with the matter at all.

I appreciate it.

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

We cannot sense anything beyond the natural, so saying we can know nothing that does not present itself to the senses, directly or indirectly, eliminates anything beyond the natural. If i can see it, hear it, taste it, smell it, or touch it, then it is natural. Not because I define it that way, but because we know how senses work. If i see it it is composed of light, which is electromagnetism. Hear it and it is energy in the form of a sound wave. Etc.

This is precisely why acceptance of science is a denial of super-nature. While science does not address the supernatural and cannot prove it does not exist, it is because super-nature is non-sensible.

If super-nature, being non-sensible, left so much as a fingerprint on nature, science would falter.

A piece of art or an item of poetry.

Can science define and measure its real value and worth? Please

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

A piece of art or an item of poetry.

Can science define and measure its real value and worth? Please

I'm not sure why you highlighted the part you did, but to answer your question, Yes! In any way that can be repeated and predicted.

Science can tell you the number of atoms, the weight, any deminsion, the color theory can predict the pleasantness or discord within limits. The value to you or to me in terms of dollors, as far as it is predictable and repeatable yes. As far as your subjective opinion, how is that repeatable or predictable? If it is predictable, then it is science.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A piece of art or an item of poetry.

Can science define and measure its real value and worth? Please

I was going to get to that.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I agree with you.

Thanks

Do you have any rebuttal to my counterarguments to this and the previous post? It is a debate thread after all.

 

[viole]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

Science explains in natural terms what was considered non-natural. The contrary never happens. It is religion that adapts to what we observe, usually by demoting to "symbolic" what is clearly against the available objective evidence. So, even the religious, in general, recognizes the primacy of the scientific method as a tool to deduce truths about the world.

So, yes. It is rational to infer that methodological naturalism works because the world is fundamentally natural. That certainly gives a certain high degree of statistical confidence. A sort of statistical quality control, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Science explains in natural terms what was considered non-natural. The contrary never happens. It is religion that adapts to what we observe, usually by demoting to "symbolic" what is clearly against the available objective evidence.

I'll ruin your point by limericizing about an example....

To urge repentance using fear,
they say the end is very near.
But then they must
their date adjust
to float so that it's never here.

 

[viole]

I'll ruin your point by limericizing about an example....

To urge repentance using fear,
they say the end is very near.
But then they must
their date adjust
to float so that it's never here.

Well, I said "in general".

The funny thing is that I have a weird intellectual resonance with fundamentalistic Christians. At least, they do not compromise, even though they are clearly wrong.

True, by moving dates you can never be proven wrong. But that is backpedaling too, isn't it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[paarsurrey]

Science explains in natural terms what was considered non-natural. The contrary never happens. It is religion that adapts to what we observe, usually by demoting to "symbolic" what is clearly against the available objective evidence. So, even the religious, in general, recognizes the primacy of the scientific method as a tool to deduce truths about the world.

So, yes. It is rational to infer that methodological naturalism works because the world is fundamentally natural. That certainly gives a certain high degree of statistical confidence. A sort of statistical quality control, lol.

Ciao

- viole

Thanks for joining the discussion.

But I wanted citations from the text books of science and or from peer reviewed articles in journals of science mentioning Atheism, its claims and reasons.

Would you, please?

Regards

 

[viole]

To (hopefully) answer this all at once, science's limit in this case would be the human ability to see the links, but the links still trace clearly back to some sort of entity that has (at least in part) a material existence.

God as a "spiritual concept" would have no method to interact with our world unless spiritual is a metaphoric term.

"Spiritual" is not a metaphoric term. It is the response of human neurons to some inputs. Call it love, awe, sunsets, Mona Lisa, Beethoven, whatever. Cut the right part of the brain, and they will disappear, for good. They are no more objectively superior than toothache or hunger, or other far less noble instincts.

In this respect, all these feelings of spirituality are perfectly measurable on a brain scan, when the technology will be available. So, they are objective. And linked to our evolutionary past. The same, of course, with our moral instincts.

Unless, we believe that aliens would fall for Mona Lisa and Beethoven, for some unwarranted reasons.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"Spiritual" is not a metaphoric term. It is the response of human neurons to some inputs. Call it love, awe, sunsets, Mona Lisa, Beethoven, whatever. Cut the right part of the brain, and they will disappear, for good. They are no more objectively superior than toothache or hunger, or other far less noble instincts.

In this respect, all these feelings of spirituality are perfectly measurable on a brain scan, when the technology will be available. So, they are objective. And linked to our evolutionary past. The same, of course, with our moral instincts.

Unless, we believe that aliens would fall for Mona Lisa and Beethoven, for some unwarranted reasons.

Ciao

- viole

And therefore, spirit is a function of substance and not its own separate substance, meaning God means so much less than the OP believes.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Original Post does not mention of the One-True-God; it is in connection with Atheism; its claims and reason mentioned in a text book of science and or in a journal of science.

Notwithstanding the above; the One-True-God is neither physical/material nor a spiritual Being; He is attributive.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

So far nobody has quoted from a text book of science or from a peer reviewed article in a reputed journal of science which makes a mention of Atheism.

Isn't it strange that Atheists extol science so much but science doesn't own them or their ideology?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

So far nobody has quoted from a text book of science or from a peer reviewed article in a reputed journal of science which makes a mention of Atheism.

Isn't it strange that Atheists extol science so much but science doesn't own them or their ideology?

Isn't it strange that your straw man has been beat to death and yet it is all you have.

Science doesn't own ghosts, unicorns, gremlins, gods, or any other non-sensible. What seems strange is a person that cannot discern between the sensible and the non-sensible.

 

[Sunstone]

Isn't it strange that Atheists extol science so much but science doesn't own them or their ideology?

Greetings, Traveler! May I politely inquire on which planet of your home solar system your observation is considered to be insightful?

 

[Revoltingest]

So far nobody has quoted from a text book of science or from a peer reviewed article in a reputed journal of science which makes a mention of Atheism.
Isn't it strange that Atheists extol science so much but science doesn't own them or their ideology?

Science doesn't speak to atheism because it isn't at all amenable to the scientific method.
Of course, this doesn't prevent science from providing explanations which enable disbelief.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The Original Post does not mention of the One-True-God; it is in connection with Atheism; its claims and reason mentioned in a text book of science and or in a journal of science.

Notwithstanding the above; the One-True-God is neither physical/material nor a spiritual Being; He is attributive.

Regards

I do feel this needs to be pointed out (though I know it is a wasted effort) but "attributive" in this case means...what, exactly?

Its definition reads "relating to or of the nature of an attribute"...so are you saying your definition of God is simply a being that takes all the credit for what it didn't actually do?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I do feel this needs to be pointed out (though I know it is a wasted effort) but "attributive" in this case means...what, exactly?

Defining.

 

[paarsurrey]

An attribute is a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic of someone or something. In respect of the One-True-God it would be in terms of absolutes without a blemish; one attribute guarding against the other.