What would be a "natural contrary" to "God"?
What are the conflicts between atheism and science?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
What would be a "natural contrary" to "God"?
I don't have an interpretation of (G)od.
There is only one God (if nothing else the upper-case means that).
To assert that one is God, is a disbelief in God.
jan.
Self-evidently incorrect.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I basically agree with that. Maybe I'd define 'secularism' as a primary interest in, and concern with, the events of this world, and not with events supposedly taking place on higher planes of being or in transcendental heavens. Secularism, humanism and naturalism all seem to be aspects of the same broader this-worldly cultural thrust. Science grew out of it and embodies it.
Yes, it does. I think that I would say that atheism reflects secularism. Denial of supernatural deities is the this-worldly impulse being pushed to what atheists would argue is its ultimate conclusion. But secularism needn't always be atheist. There are many self-identified "Christians" who spend their Sundays watching football instead of going to church who are expressions of secularism too.
Wouldn't atheism imply precisely that?
That's stronger than many secular people would put it themselves. Countless people pay nominal homage to what culture has traditionally told them are "higher things", but they orient their actual lives lives towards more tangible matters that are of more interest to them. But many of these secular individuals still have a sense of religiosity and still feel an intuition of "the beyond" now and then, an emotional hint of something that seems to them to be transcendent. So many of them will tell you, perfectly honestly and sincerely, that they believe in "God". But they are awfully vague about what the word actually means and the belief doesn't really play very much of a role in their daily lives.
Most of the people that we pass every day in the street are like that.
Getting back to your first sentence though, I still don't see any direct conflict between science and atheism. Neither one logically implies the other, but they aren't contradictory either.
Actually, we often do not believe in things because we first have evidence that they exist. We often believe in things for numerous circumstantial reasons (such as hearsay), or because we simply desire them to be true (such completing an course - there is no evidence that you in particular will complete a course you've taken, but you take it anyway and put in a lot of work).
Suppose you are now in London and desire to go to New York.
There is no evidence that you will arrive there.
By the logic of "evidence first, then belief", you should never hop on that plane to NY.
One more time:
The statement clearly expresses a belief in god, but merely uses a different definition. E,g. god, in this instance is not "someone/ thing else" but the individual in question.
From that you would then have to explore further, in most cases where I've seen this form used it's not an indication that the individual thinks him/ herself solely to be god (and therefore probably sharing accommodation next to Napoleon and all fifteen Elvises in that particular establishment) but that we are all, each and every one of us, god.
Agreed. People are so irrational.
When you say "no evidence that we will arrive there" are you referring to the possibility of an accident on the way? Or the possible non-existence of New York?
i think the analogy would be better posited if instead of using a person to get from there to here, but with their luggage..
Both, and more (e.g. perhaps it is not possible to cross the Atlantic at all and the people who claim to have gone there are lying).
A Londoner has only second- or third-hand evidence of New York's existence and second- or third-hand evidence of the possibility of arriving there.
Dywyddyr,
No, it expresses a belief in oneself as God.
No. It means one thinks of themsives of being a supreme authority.
jan.
No, it expresses a belief in oneself as God.
No. It means one thinks of themsives of being a supreme authority.
jan.
In other words it's using a different definition of god.
Read the rest of the post: "From that you would then have to explore further".
That occurred to me, but knowledge of aviation and engineering would lend evidence to the supposition.
Agreed.
You have no idea.
As you know I used to work in exactly that field: airport luggage handling. One day we had a prospective customer visit with a view to a long-term contract and he asked something that (as a mechanical designer) was outside my purview. I told him he'd have to ask the software guys.
He was a little surprised "Software department? How hard is it to write a programme for a conveyor that just goes in circles?"
Me: "Do you have ANY idea of the difficulties involved in getting your luggage sent to a country you've never heard of when your flight is only to the next nearest airport?"
In other words it's using a different definition of god.
Read the rest of the post: "From that you would then have to explore further".
A different definition of God, is just that a "different" definition.
The rest of your post alludes to various types of buddhism, which is an atheist philosophy.
jan.
i have always wondered how much of a persons luggage actually gets on the same plane they do..
The annoying thing is that, on the first flight I took after leaving that job my luggage didn't arrive until a month later.
And the conveyor I had stood expectantly beside for twenty minutes waiting just happened to be one I had designed...
And your point? It still uses the concept of god.
No. If there's a belief in god (in whatever form) then it cannot be atheist.