Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[iceaura]

Perhaps I misunderstand the title of his book or his interviews or his video on theists or his <insert source of polemic>?

That's been pretty obvious all along. Your extrapolations and paraphrases are pretty flagrantly based on misreadings and bizarre presumptions, for example, so it's difficult to credit you with understanding of the basic writings.

btw, about the OP:

Atheism and creationism are philosophical inferences, and, irrespective of the truth of either faith, neither is consistent with the scientific method

That's BS. Atheism is obviously consistent with the scientific method, in most of its forms, and creationism can be made so with reasonable adjustiments of its premises.

 

[spidergoat]

Hmm is an unverifiable hypothesis a delusion?

If you believe it to be 100% true, despite lack of evidence and all evidence to the contrary, yes.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you believe it to be 100% true, despite lack of evidence and all evidence to the contrary, yes.

What if you write a book on it and use science to support your belief in an unverifiable hypothesis?

 

[iceaura]

What if you write a book on it and use science to support your belief in an unverifiable hypothesis?

Hard to imagine "science" actually "supporting" an "unverifiable hypothesis" of any relevant kind - we're off in the fog again, apparently.

I know this is intended to have relevance - - - let me guess:

Is atheism supposed to be some kind of "unverifiable hypothesis" that one "believes in", now ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Is atheism supposed to be some kind of "unverifiable hypothesis" that one "believes in", now ?

Nah, when you write a book called "The God Delusion". you're asserting a verifiable scientific thesis.

 

[iceaura]

Is atheism supposed to be some kind of "unverifiable hypothesis" that one "believes in", now ? ”

Nah, when you write a book called "The God Delusion". you're asserting a verifiable scientific thesis.

So I guessed wrong, or said something wrong, or something ?

Little help here, I'm having trouble finding your argument.

 

[S.A.M.]

So I guessed wrong, or said something wrong, or something ?

Little help here, I'm having trouble finding your argument.

The argument is yours. :shrug:

I already explained my position.

Nah, when you write a book called "The God Delusion". you're asserting a verifiable scientific thesis.

Right?

 

[spidergoat]

The delusion is self-evident, a social phenomenon. It's absolute faith in an idea that at best, has no supporting evidence.

 

[iceaura]

I already explained my position.


“ Nah, when you write a book called "The God Delusion". you're asserting a verifiable scientific thesis. ”

Right?

So was that sarcasm, assertion, commentary on what was quoted just before it, what ?

As an explanation of a "position", it's incomprehensible. Are you claiming that Dawkins was advancing a scientific thesis ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Atheism isn't a claim - it is merely a lack of belief in certain claims due to lack of evidence.

then its not clear on what basis a person could make the (atheistic) claims given in the OP

 

[S.A.M.]

So was that sarcasm, assertion, commentary on what was quoted just before it, what ?

As an explanation of a "position", it's incomprehensible. Are you claiming that Dawkins was advancing a scientific thesis ?

No he was simply showing a one-sided argument, and using scientific arguments to use individual claims to support a wider unverifiable hypothesis.

 

[S.A.M.]

The delusion is self-evident, a social phenomenon. It's absolute faith in an idea that at best, has no supporting evidence.

Yeah, happens to a lot of scientists when they get too attached to their pet thesis.

And fundies who get too attached to a POV and think everyone should follow them.

http://richarddawkins.net/underTopStoryB

Perhaps Dawkins will one day see the light?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't believe in playing golf in my spare time. Does this label me as an agolfer? I suppose so, but I don't refer to myself as such.

complications would arise however when you assert the credibility of a "non-ness" through an existing and independent knowlegdge.

Like the claim of Dr Massimo Pigliucci, as given in the OP

.... he made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven.

Atheism is a condition that occurs among rationalists. There is no apparent such thing as "atheist fundamentalism."

Fundamentalism is a belief in the infallibility, and literal interpretation, of a particular religion’s dogma or doctrine, as defined by the authors of The Fundamentals during the early 20th century. They sought to protect their superstitions and paranormal beliefs in Christian mythology and mysticism against the increasing tide of rationalist paradigms that threatened them.

thus claims to the effect of "increased empirical investigation strengthens the case for the non-belief in heaven" brings atheism into the realm of fundamentalism

Therefore, it cannot be said that atheism, which isn't a dogma, doctrine or religion (except, perhaps, in the eyes of the irrational that seek to impose the to quoque fallacy of "you too"), has a "fundamentalist" side.

Incidently, if this is to be simply an anti-science thread posted in a science forum (attempting to argue that because Egnor is trained as a scientist will not work as a defense since his anti-science rants are well-known and rebuked on the web), it will likely find its way to the cesspool.

on the contrary it is pro-science - if you insist that words like "science" and "atheism" are inextricably linked, and thus a criticism of atheism constitutes a criticism of science, I would argue that is simply your fundamentalism colouring the picture

 

[spidergoat]

Atheism isn't the thesis, The God Hypothesis is the thesis, which Dawkins does a good job at refuting. He doesn't and cannot disprove it 100%, but not being able to disprove something doesn't mean it's true. If you want to be rational about it, you must provide evidence to support your hypothesis.

What is your evidence that atheism is fundamentalist? What is your evidence that are limits to what science can explain/describe? What beliefs do scientists like Dawkins hold without any evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary?

 

[SnakeLord]

then its not clear on what basis a person could make the (atheistic) claims given in the OP

Anyone can make any claims to anything, those claims are not "atheism", they are claims. Atheism is not a claim, it is a lack of belief in gods. That does not prohibit an atheist from making claims - to anything he feels like, but that is not atheism. Clear now?

 

[lightgigantic]

Why can't the methods of science be applied to the investigation of anything? Why is the hypothesis of a heaven or a God supposed to be off-limits?

true
that is why science is technically "empiricism" (or deals with the senses as the ultimate authority) while religious "science" (if you want to call it that) deals with consciousness as the ultimate authority - at last for arguments sake, there is no empirically falsifiable claims that can be applied to consciousness, thus empiricism has no purview into theistic claims

Rationalism (accepting the mind as the ultimate authority) can offer some foundation for the investigation of god, but not to the point of verification (rationalism deals more with discussion of 'concepts", so rationalism proceeds by discussing god as a "concept")

 

[lightgigantic]

Anyone can make any claims to anything, those claims are not "atheism", they are claims. Atheism is not a claim, it is a lack of belief in gods. That does not prohibit an atheist from making claims - to anything he feels like, but that is not atheism. Clear now?

then in that case, it wouldn't be fundamental atheism, and thus the claim (or claims like it) in the OP would never come from the mouth of such a person - given our previous discussions however, it is clear that you are not in such a category

 

[lightgigantic]

The methods of science CAN be applied to the investigation of anything - on the proviso that the something is testable, repeatable, falsifiable etc.

The next question would be whether the words "empirical investigation" and "complete investigation of reality" are synonymous .....

 

[spidergoat]

true
that is why science is technically "empiricism" (or deals with the senses as the ultimate authority) while religious "science" (if you want to call it that) deals with consciousness as the ultimate authority - at last for arguments sake, there is no empirically falsifiable claims that can be applied to consciousness, thus empiricism has no purview into theistic claims

Rationalism (accepting the mind as the ultimate authority) can offer some foundation for the investigation of god, but not to the point of verification (rationalism deals more with discussion of 'concepts", so rationalism proceeds by discussing god as a "concept")

So, scientific methods don't work when applied to the workings of the mind? There is no science of consciousness and the brain?

Theism doesn't claim just to deal with consciousness, but with all of life, it's qualities, the origins of all things- material and otherwise. There is certainly some empirical tests that can be made on those things.

Additionally, science hasn't been limited by the abilities of our senses ever since the first microscope was created.

 

[SnakeLord]

then in that case, it wouldn't be fundamental atheism, and thus the claim (or claims like it) in the OP would never come from the mouth of such a person

Look lg, your original question asked: "Is atheism a claim that stands outside of science"

Your original question is flawed because "atheism" is not a claim. It is important that you understand that, because how can a proper discussion be conducted when the original question is flawed?

given our previous discussions however, it is clear that you are not in such a category

Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at. Are you saying I am or am not in the fundie category?