Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

[S.A.M.]

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?

Both sides can argue ad nauseum, its all been said and done before, there are plenty of arguments for absence of evidence and vice versa in atheistic literature in India.

Ultimately, the argument is, one cannot claim that God is a delusion unless one can prove it.

Atheists live in the same universe, bound by the same laws as everyone else.

 

[lightgigantic]

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

the foundation of empiricism is the senses - if you can't measure it, empiricism doesn't have much to do with it

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.

sure you can empirically investigate them - but only with the senses - the issue is however that the senses are not the final last word about us in terms of our powers of investigation

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

thus the microscope offers a greater investigation, but still a limited one - the senses are constitutionally imperfect or incomplete in their investigations, no matter what advancements are made in the departments of the macro or microcosm

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

the OP indicates a scientific claim on the basis of atheism

(Dr Massimo Pigliucci).... has made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven.

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

if you make a scientific claim based on atheism you're in

 

[spidergoat]

Ultimately, the argument is, one cannot claim that God is a delusion unless one can prove it.

So by analogy, my belief in a flying spaghetti monster cannot be considered a delusion unless you can prove there isn't one.

 

[lightgigantic]

So by analogy, my belief in a flying spaghetti monster cannot be considered a delusion unless you can prove there isn't one.

with empiricism as a foundation, the scope for making negative assertions is very limited

Dawkins book is essentially an attempt at rationalism - critics suggest he might have been better off sticking to a field he is actually trained in, like biology

Unfortunately, however, Dawkins seems more interested in polemics than in careful scrutiny of arguments. His discussions of the traditional proofs for God's existence are lamentably scrappy: the first three of Aquinas' Five Ways, for example, are dismissed en bloc in two pages whose cavalier abruptness will be embarrassing even to Dawkins' most ardent fans; and the ontological argument, whose logic has fascinated atheist philosophers as eminent as Bertrand Russell, is shrugged off as "infantile ... logomachist trickery". Whether these various traditional arguments are valid or not is beside the point. The point is that Dawkins' blatant failure to give them a decent hearing hardly serves the cause of the impartial scientific fairness that he professes to uphold.

A Review of Dawkins by Prof. John Cottingham

 

[Michael]

by Michael Egnor

introduction

Juno Walker at Letters from Vrai has responded to my post Dr. Pigliucci and Fundamentalism in Science Education. Dr Massimo Pigliucci published an essay in The McGill Journal of Education in which he made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven. I pointed out in my post that Heaven wasn’t exactly a proper subject for the scientific method and that the assertion that science education was even applicable to a belief in Heaven was fundamentalism — a kind of atheist fundamentalism. The conflation of methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism — science and atheism — is no more acceptable pedagogy than the conflation of science and creationism. Atheism and creationism are philosophical inferences, and, irrespective of the truth of either faith, neither is consistent with the scientific method. The scientific method — methodological naturalism — is the data-driven study of nature. It’s based on natural, not supernatural, claims. The irony is that the McGill Journal of Education published Dr. Pigliucci's atheist broadsheet for fundamentalism in science education, but would never publish a creationist broadsheet for fundamentalism in science education.

Is atheism a claim that stands outside of science?

I think that when atheism is used as a claim it does stand outside of science because the scientific method can not be used to measure a non-entity. It's simply outside of the scope of natural science.

That why is much more reasonable to say I'm atheist in regards to such and such Goddess etc.. over "I'm an atheist" because even theists are atheistic in regards to many various Gods and Goddesses.

 

[SnakeLord]

the OP indicates a scientific claim on the basis of atheism

But that's not what the questions asks. Perhaps you should correct it? Impossible to proceed when the original question is flawed.

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

Effective science education possibly would dissuade students from a "belief in heaven" and other such things outside of the scope of the scientific method - precisely because they're outside of the scope of the scientific method.

 

[spidergoat]

Dawkins is not a strong atheist on the scale of weak to strong atheism. For his part, he simply feels theism is most probably wrong, and there is evidence to support that view.

Lightgigantic,
Have you seen Aquinas' "proofs"? They are amazingly weak. Dawkins is as well suited to the task of sorting out the truth of the theological situation as the biological one. They are both rather complicated and necessarily include concepts central to the questions of philosophy. In this sense, evolution bridges the gap between what has previously only been the subject of priests and philosophers.

 

[Thoreau]

I have definately concluded that lightgigantic IS infact VitalOne

 

[lightgigantic]

I think that when atheism is used as a claim it does stand outside of science because the scientific method can not be used to measure a non-entity.

would determining god as a "non-entity" be an atheistic claim?
Does being a non-entity mean it doesn't exist or it is something that is merely attributed to being beyond the purview of one's means of investigation?

That why is much more reasonable to say I'm atheist in regards to such and such Goddess etc.. over "I'm an atheist" because even theists are atheistic in regards to many various Gods and Goddesses.

on the contrary there are indications (eg interfaith dialogue) of holistic approaches to theism

 

[lightgigantic]

snakelord

“
the OP indicates a scientific claim on the basis of atheism
”
But that's not what the questions asks. Perhaps you should correct it? Impossible to proceed when the original question is flawed.

opens with a scientific claim based on atheism and poses a question whether atheism is beyond the purview of science
seems straight forward and most other posters seem to have gotten it straight off the bat
:shrug:

“
has made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven
”
Effective science education possibly would dissuade students from a "belief in heaven" and other such things outside of the scope of the scientific method - precisely because they're outside of the scope of the scientific method.

and that's science?

 

[lightgigantic]

Dawkins is not a strong atheist on the scale of weak to strong atheism. For his part, he simply feels theism is most probably wrong, and there is evidence to support that view.

he is not so foolish as to say openly "God does not exist" but he acts in such a way to conform to such a stance - I think SAM has provided enough info to clearly indicate that ....

Lightgigantic,
Have you seen Aquinas' "proofs"? They are amazingly weak. Dawkins is as well suited to the task of sorting out the truth of the theological situation as the biological one. They are both rather complicated and necessarily include concepts central to the questions of philosophy. In this sense, evolution bridges the gap between what has previously only been the subject of priests and philosophers.

a little training in philosophy reveals that Dawkin's arguments are amazingly weak, outside of specific issues that surround evolution

 

[lightgigantic]

I have definately concluded that lightgigantic IS infact VitalOne

lol
more empirical folly

 

[spidergoat]

he is not so foolish as to say openly "God does not exist" but he acts in such a way to conform to such a stance - I think SAM has provided enough info to clearly indicate that ....



a little training in philosophy reveals that Dawkin's arguments are amazingly weak, outside of specific issues that surround evolution

Well, sure. If the possibility of something is so small, one might as well assume it doesn't exist. Someday, new evidence might cause us to re-evaluate that. I have yet to hear you provide any substantial argument against Dawkins expect "you can't trust your senses to tell you anything".

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, sure. If the possibility of something is so small, one might as well assume it doesn't exist. Someday, new evidence might cause us to re-evaluate that. I have yet to hear you provide any substantial argument against Dawkins expect "you can't trust your senses to tell you anything".

this thread is more of an issue of logic

sense perception + positive assertion of non-existence = hard going

if you want to specifically discuss means of asserting theistic claims, we should probably take it to a separate thread, since its not a subject Dawkins comes close to approaching

 

[spidergoat]

You're analysis of the subject is less than retarded. Addressing the reasons given for theistic claims is the precise subject of Dawkins' book.

 

[S.A.M.]

So by analogy, my belief in a flying spaghetti monster cannot be considered a delusion unless you can prove there isn't one.

If you want to believe in a FSM, can anyone stop you? Nope.

 

[lightgigantic]

You're analysis of the subject is less than retarded. Addressing the reasons given for theistic claims is the precise subject of Dawkins' book.

if you want to specifically discuss means of asserting theistic claims, we should probably take it to a separate thread, since its not a subject Dawkins comes close to approaching

Addressing the reasons given for theistic claims is the precise subject of Dawkins' book.

are the words "means" and "reasons" the same?
:shrug:

 

[Enmos]

if you want to specifically discuss means of asserting theistic claims, we should probably take it to a separate thread, since its not a subject Dawkins comes close to approaching

Addressing the reasons given for theistic claims is the precise subject of Dawkins' book.

are the words "means" and "reasons" the same?
:shrug:

no..

 

[spidergoat]

If you want to believe in a FSM, can anyone stop you? Nope.

Yay, fantasic refutation of Dawkins! I'LL BELIEVE IN WHAT I LIKE AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME! NANANANANANA