Science and atheism inconsistent?

[atanu]

Which isn't of much help in this case, but nice to know.

Just for the context.

Some do, sure. Some don't. My disagreement with you is around conflation of atheism and philosophical naturalism. They are not the same.

Why does philosophical naturalism need to be pure empirical evidence based? That seems contradictory to me.

Willamena and PureX have answered these.

Scientists should be agnostic, and neither theists nor atheists can do science?
How does that jive with whatever empirical evidence the last thousand years has given us?

Theists and atheists are doing science and they can do so.

The OP, IMO, is mainly about crucial difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. The new atheists mostly presume to speak and write in the name of science and it is in that sense that most readers, receptive and antagonistic, have taken them. This is wrong.

Philosphical naturalism is absolute belief in only the sensual-mental. Science, OTHT, assumes naturalism in working methods, without considering naturalism as an absolute truth.

Perhaps not. I would humbly submit that you should be less certain of my position than you seem to be. We appear to have talked past each other to some degree.

If this has happened, I am sorry. My mistake.

 

[PureX]

Of which none of these, have anything to do with science.

Atheism, theism and agnosticism are not science, PERIOD.

I agree. But it seems that nearly every atheist I meet believes that science has somehow justified their atheism.

 

[PureX]

"Subjective evidence" is not evidence, since only you can perceive it.

That is an illogical bias, as it blindly presumes that the experience of truth/reality must be universal. Kind of flies in the face of relativism, don't you think?

And let's be clear, "no evidence" of anything, while it does not prove the thing does not exist, is most definitively no reason to suppose that it is. That is not a flaw, that's rational thinking.

I agree, which is why I have stated multiple times, now, that theism is based on value, not evidence.

You may "suppose" anything at all that you like, absent all the evidence in the universe. But you would be very, very wrong to accuse me of being closed-minded for not believing that you had actual proof of anything.

No one is proposing that there is actual proof of the existence of God. No one sane, anyway.

How many wild-eyed dreamers have so far declared they've discovered the secret to eternal life, or perpetual energy, or proof of reincarnation, or the reality of ghosts? And the only thing they've ever missed, that they've never been able to produce, is evidence that anybody else can see.

I don't know, how many? I've never met one.

I tell you honestly, I think we are all completely justified in being totally skeptical of such claims.

Being skeptical is a characteristic of agnosticism. Not atheism. Atheism concludes that no evidence/proof = no gods.

 

[PureX]

You failed to address the following...

I'm not going to address what you think I probably believe.

 

[shunyadragon]

Word salad and blatant obfuscation. This equivocation nonsense is used only to impress the ignorant, and give the appearance of being intellectually honest. Why do believers conveniently leave out WHY Atheist do not believe in the existence of any god(s)? Why do believers avoid stating that, "Atheist don't believe in God, because there is absolutely no objective evidence to support any such belief"? Why is this dependent clause always left out? The assertion also includes the reason. Do you expect any rational person to believe in any extraordinary claim, simply because you do? Is the belief in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or the Cookie Monster, a belief system? Is a belief in none of these also a belief system? Is the belief not to believe in any of these, also a belief system? Just more desperate and silly word games.

Just one objective bit of evidence(miracle, prophesy, violation of natural law, violation of cause and effect, a resurrection, evidence of an afterlife, etc.). Just one logically consistent and fallacy-free argument. Just one demonstrable objective example of the supernatural, the paranormal, the spiritual, or the astral plane. Produce this evidence and Atheism would end. Or, at least be logically questioned. Since believers believe without objective evidence, no amount of rational evidence could dissuade them from their belief. Even God Himself wouldn't stand a chance.

I hope you feel better after you got this rant off your chest.

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree. But it seems that nearly every atheist I meet believes that science has somehow justified their atheism.

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

 

[atanu]

=== NOTICE ===
I've never found that being an atheist interfered with science.
And vice versa.

In my case, being an atheist (and then a theist) did not interfere with scientific work. But that is not the point.

 

[Fool]

I get the sense that you really do feel like you were making some sort of point.

i did. i stated everyone has a belief system. what someone does and doesn't believe states more about the person than it does the subject.


the fact is people have belief systems. beliefs are not compatible with science, unless you test those beliefs be research. science, or knowledge of something, is the experience of something and not the belief for or against it. belief is used in the scientific method to test for the possibility. it isn't the blatant belief without seeking.

an ism is still an ism no matter how small.


that is the point.

 

[Fool]

I’d say atheism is the opposite of a belief system. It’s the denial of belief.

Does your belief system incorporate Zeus? Gilgamesh? Ra?

negative belief is still belief. negative beliefs are no more fact than positive beliefs.

 

[Fool]

A rose is far more specific than flower.

unless you want to use mathematics, language isn't precise, nor is the universe static.

by the way, which rose of the 150 species was you referring to?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i did. i stated everyone has a belief system. what someone does and doesn't believe states more about the person than it does the subject.


the fact is people have belief systems. beliefs are not compatible with science, unless you test those beliefs be research. science, or knowledge of something, is the experience of something and not the belief for or against it. belief is used in the scientific method to test for the possibility. it isn't the blatant belief without seeking.

an ism is still an ism no matter how small.


that is the point.

But you just agreed that atheism isn't a belief system, didn't you?

Even if every person has a belief system, the belief system of an atheist isn't "atheism."

"Atheism" is a catch-all term for an infinite number of belief systems that include no gods. It's not a belief system in its own right.

 

[Fool]

But you just agreed that atheism isn't a belief system, didn't you?

Even if every person has a belief system, the belief system of an atheist isn't "atheism."

"Atheism" is a catch-all term for an infinite number of belief systems that include no gods. It's not a belief system in its own right.

no i didn't agree.

beliefs aren't compatible with science; whether postive or negative, and taking a negative belief without research is anti-scientific.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

no i didn't agree.

Ah - I misunderstood your position. You're just wrong, then.

beliefs aren't compatible with science; whether postive or negative,

[/quote]
That's a rather extreme - and also wrong - position.

and taking a negative belief without research is anti-scientific.

The only necessary belief of explicit atheism is the view about gods that was attributed to Laplace: "I had no need for that hypothesis."

Please explain how this is anti-scientific.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Just for the context.

Cool, all good.

Willamena and PureX have answered these.

Well...sure...but I don't think I have much of a disagreement with them, more just clarification on our points/intent. Might be the same for you and me.

Theists and atheists are doing science and they can do so.

Agreed.

The OP, IMO, is mainly about crucial difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. The new atheists mostly presume to speak and write in the name of science and it is in that sense that most readers, receptive and antagonistic, have taken them. This is wrong.

Hmm...thing is, he didn't say 'some atheists' or 'new atheists'. He said 'atheists'. He is then assuming all atheists are philosophical naturalists. That alone appears to invalidate his argument, to me.

New atheists can presume whatever they like, but they don't speak for me. There are many atheists in Australia who wouldn't be able to name them.

Philosphical naturalism is absolute belief in only the sensual-mental. Science, OTHT, assumes naturalism in working methods, without considering naturalism as an absolute truth.

I agree, and indeed that's the point I was trying to make to Willemena earlier. To be fair, she accepted it, and I think we'd misunderstood each other to some degree.

If this has happened, I am sorry. My mistake.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound like I was assigning fault. It can be my explanation, or just our varied perspectives causing it. But perhaps our real difference is around whether atheism can be conflated with philosophical naturalism? I think not, but I think the article from the OP does exactly that.

 

[atanu]

I'm talking about:

- an absence of positive evidence for the existence of gods,
- positive evidence for the non-existence of certain gods,
- positive evidence corroborating many godless worldviews, and
- problems reconciling real-world evidence with worldviews that include gods.

In my opinion, none of these invalidate Dr. Marcelo Gleiser's view of no evidence of no god.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my case, being an atheist (and then a theist) did not interfere with scientific work. But that is not the point.

I think you do have a valid point.

 

[Fool]

Ah - I misunderstood your position. You're just wrong, then.

That's a rather extreme - and also wrong - position.


The only necessary belief of explicit atheism is the view about gods that was attributed to Laplace: "I had no need for that hypothesis."

Please explain how this is anti-scientific.

i didn't single out atheism as anti-scientific. i stated having any kind of belief/disbelief; without research, testing the belief/disbelief, is anti-scientific.


you're so focused on atheism you can't even see your own bias.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my opinion, none of these invalidate Dr. Marcelo Gleiser's view of no evidence of no god.

How do you think that they determine whether a species is extinct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i didn't single out atheism as anti-scientific. i stated having any kind of belief/disbelief; without research, testing the belief/disbelief, is anti-scientific.

Actually, what you said was "beliefs aren't compatible with science; whether postive or negative." Nothing about "without research" in that statement.

you're so focused on atheism you can't even see your own bias.

What bias are you talking about?

 

[Willamena]

No, it really isn't.

Implicit atheism makes no statements at all, while the statement of explicit atheism is just "I'm not convinced" or "I see no need for that hypothesis."

But explicitly, atheism does. The statements you've presented are not atheism.

Atheism is, "I don't/she/he/they don't believe in God or gods."