What are the conflicts between atheism and science?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Isn't that kind of a straw-man definition of 'atheist'?
I don't think that human beings can ever speak with 100% certainty about what is and isn't the case out there in reality. (In that sense, 'true' and 'false' are cognitive ideals.) What the propositions that we utter actually have are informal probabilities. Some assertions have very high likelihood of being true, others have very low chances, and still others are kind of 50-50 toss-ups.
So on this epistemological view, none of us can say that there's no possibility that "God" exists. Or that Thor, Zeus, Marduk, Cybele, the easter bunny or invisible pink unicorns can't possibly exist. Maybe the world really is run by a conspiracy directed by space-aliens. Maybe the voices that only schizophrenics hear really are whispering divine truths. But I think that we can be pretty confident that the probabilities are so low that it's rational for us not to believe in these kind of things.
Last edited:
Rav,
How so?
Do particles react to observation or not?
This is the part we must be clear on.
Only if we assume that consciousness is physical.
Same as above.
jan.
How so?
Do particles react to observation or not?
This is the part we must be clear on.
Only if we assume that consciousness is physical.
Same as above.
jan.
You still don't get it. That's just word salad.
Nope, I'm an atheist. Maybe you should try to comprehend your own links. My position if one of belief, or lack of, rather than knowledge.
Google "no true Scotsman".
I do find it interesting that when I describe myself as an agnosic, I get told that I am actually an atheist. And when I describe myself as an atheist, I get told that I am actually an agnostic.
Confirms my point that it's the theist who defines the atheist. Is there is but one god, and I don't believe in your definition of god (when I can dig one out of you) - am I an atheist?
Generally speaking, an atheist [from atheos = without gods] refers to someone who does not believe in ANY god whatsoever
Science does not "accept" a hypothesis until proven false, it "entertains" it, or considers it unless there is evidence against it. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, even in science, when the evidence should be there but we don't see it.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Truth! What does this mean? (Jn 18:37-38)
In other words you've got nothing...
You made a specific claim:
which included that word.
Unfortunately your usage does not conform with reality.
It may be true that you believe things are so, but you cannot show it to be so, thus: it is NOT true.
The sine qua non of science is cause and effect. Of assumptions and inferences based on what cannot be disproved. This is the opposite of atheism which begins with the assumption that there is nothing to prove or disprove. If atheists applied the same reasoning to life as they do to theology their concept formation would mirror that of the Piraha.
Last edited:
Welcome to my ignore list Jan, you really aren't worth the time.
"What cannot be disproved" encompasses an infinite number of hypothesis, including the famous celestial teapot and the flying pasta beast. Science does not work this way.
No matter what you're doing, or what you're thinking or feeling, we can measure the activity going on in the brain that is responsible for that. Hell, we can even decode images out of brain waves these days, and we're getting better at it all the time.
Superpositions of possible states collapse into definite single states when we disturb the quantum world by performing a measurement. The process of measurement involves physical interference (such as bouncing photons off something). So in order to look (obtain information) at the quantum world we need to interact with it in a physical way.
Consciousness can't directly observe the quantum world, it can only later interpret information that we obtain in other ways.
Yours is, as has been pointed out at the beginning of this post.
You didn't respond to this:
You don't have to of course, as you're free to discuss (or not) anything you encounter here. But I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts.
Define the word "god". How can I say if I believe or not if no one will define the word.
If you mean "a personality" that exists outside the universe and knows the number of hairs on my head and every sparrow that falls... No, I don't believe.
If you mean a more generic warm fuzzy word for "The Universe"... well, the Universe obviously exists.
I believe the celestial teapot and flying pasta are also arguments put forward by atheists - the arguments for theism are not outlined in the same way. I don't think it is a coincidence that religion in many if not all, parts of the world has been the stimulation for both education and science. Even the Pastafarians have to admit that no Oxford or Harvard was established by an atheist.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Which is relevant to what?
The conflicts between atheism and science? Almost everywhere in the world, education has been related to the quest for God or through scriptures and almost in all cases, science has begun as the domain of monks and friars, shamans and walis, rishis and munis.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
But at those times pretty much everyone was religious. So it's no big surprise that religious people established what had to be established.
Edit: Or are you suggesting that if no one would have been religous at those times that nothing like Oxford or Harvard would have been established?
Last edited: