I don't recall any thiests making the atheos assumption of belief in godlessness to do science.
Questions on atheist morality
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
I don't recall any thiests making the atheos assumption of belief in godlessness to do science.
But a general belief in Godlessness is not at issue. We're talking about the assumption that supernatural beings had no role in the matter being investigated. If you don't make that assumption, you aren't doing science.SAM said:
It's the old "specific rejection/ general espousal" confusion.
Since science is the study of the emprirical world (with its own reductionist pitfalls and their not so pleasant outcomes) I fail to see how a belief in God or a belief in godlessness, neither of which are a purview of empirical observation have anything to do with it.
This is a simple fact which has been understood by all theists, from the Vedas of thousands of years ago to the hijab clad woman working in a lab in King Riyadh hospital. It has nothing to do with atheism. Look at any old university and you'll see that the objective study of science has never been a source of cognitive dissonance for the theologian or the monk or the priest or the religious scholar or in far off India, for the rishis and the munis.
Athiests are a relative late entry into this field
Up until recently it was perfectly reasonable to believe in a deity. We didn't know how species came about, or what DNA was, or the Big Bang.
Some theisms do suggest that God interacts with the empirical world, so those hypothesis can be tested empirically. One can look for evidence of the need for a creator in the formation of the universe or life.
Some theisms do suggest that God interacts with the empirical world, so those hypothesis can be tested empirically. One can look for evidence of the need for a creator in the formation of the universe or life.
It has varied throughout the ages and its original origin as a word, like pretty much every word, will change as time passes by, (that's why we do not use dictionaries from 1913).
Hey, if we're going to question etymology then there is really no value in calling a homosexual "gay". If we were using a dictionary from eras long gone by then we would see gay as "happy, carefree" as opposed to a word signifying that a person has sexual attraction to members of the same sex.
Words 'evolve' Sam, (if I am allowed to use that word). Dismissing people with insult on the basis of what a dictionary nearly 100 years old says is simply nonsensical - that is not the way of words. However, if you disagree feel free to go around calling anyone that is smiling "gay" and see how far that gets you. "But it's etymology!" you scream. Ok then. :bugeye:
Regards,
Words may evolve, but they do not descend into BS.
Logically speaking, there are three positions for a belief in God.
Yes, No, Don't know.
You can choose whichever is most fitting, but don't pretend that Yes/No is Don't know. Thats dishonesty.
And many people still say gay when they mean happy.
Sure one can look, but absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence without falsifiability.
Last edited:
What does this mean?
Absense of evidence is evidence of absense.
i think we opted for no
More reductionist thinking. :yawn:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It is evidence, just not proof.
Without Sam, there would be no lies.
A woman was killed a 500 years ago, trampled by a horse.
If there were no horses, she wouldn't be dead now.
I guess this is an example of athiest rational contribution to scientific thinking.
Just proves my point that they are untidy thinkers.:shrug:
The six arguments for God
1) The Ontological argument
2) The Cosmological argument
3) Argument from design
4) Argument from miracles
5) Argument from morals
6) The Pragmatic argument
As you can see they tend from the most logical to the least logical. This debate falls into category #5.
Argument Outlined:
- If absolute moral laws exist then God exits.
- Absolute moral laws exist
- Ergo God exists
Now we discuss
- Objective and Relative morals
- Plato's dialogue Euthyphro . Here Socrates asks: "Is the pious loved by the gods because he is pious, or is he pious because he is loved by the gods?" Which is to say "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" OR as Russell would put it: Is a thing right simply because God declares it so, or does God say it is good because He recognizes a moral code superior even to Him?
and etc....
I'm still wondering: Did we decide if there was a difference in morals from Atheists and Theists?
Also, Scientologists are Alienologists not Theists. Do they not possess morals?
Muslims are Theists not Alienologists. Do they not possess morals? Are these morals "good"?
1) The Ontological argument
2) The Cosmological argument
3) Argument from design
4) Argument from miracles
5) Argument from morals
6) The Pragmatic argument
As you can see they tend from the most logical to the least logical. This debate falls into category #5.
Argument Outlined:
- If absolute moral laws exist then God exits.
- Absolute moral laws exist
- Ergo God exists
Now we discuss
- Objective and Relative morals
- Plato's dialogue Euthyphro . Here Socrates asks: "Is the pious loved by the gods because he is pious, or is he pious because he is loved by the gods?" Which is to say "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" OR as Russell would put it: Is a thing right simply because God declares it so, or does God say it is good because He recognizes a moral code superior even to Him?
and etc....
I'm still wondering: Did we decide if there was a difference in morals from Atheists and Theists?
Also, Scientologists are Alienologists not Theists. Do they not possess morals?
Muslims are Theists not Alienologists. Do they not possess morals? Are these morals "good"?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What's the difference ?
You assume that if theists hadn't come up with science long ago, there wouldn't be science today.
The point is that science could have come into play at any other moment in history, by whoever. You don't know.
By all means, add as many complex explanations for things as you want to invent, but the most parsimonious explanation necessary to explain the thing will probably be the correct one.