What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

[wynn]

all the other belief systems united when it came to the definition of God

This was shown to be false by the links I gave.

I suppose whether it is false or not depends on the perspective from which we look at it.

It certainly appears false if we start off with the idea that there are many religious traditions that compete with eachother and only one is to be the right one.

There is another perspective, though: that the various religious traditions are revelations of God's message that differ according to time, place and circumstance, each time fulfilling a different need (of the people they were revealed to).
In this sense, there is no individual religious tradition that would be right at the exclusion of all others.

 

[spidergoat]

With the exception of 'tao-ism', and, i think, buddhism, all the other belief systems united when it came to the definition of God.

You think you create dichotomies, but you don't.
You become irritated when you realise this.

jan.

That's nonsense, but it is evidence of a profound near-sightedness regarding foreign cultures.

 

[drumbeat]

With the exception of 'tao-ism', and, i think, buddhism, all the other belief systems united when it came to the definition of God.

No they don't.

 

[Kellisness]

The first thing that comes to mind is the confidence that many atheists display, a certainty that they are right and know better than anyone else.
This is in stark conflict with the spirit of science of not presuming to have "all the answers already".

Agreed. Quite a lot of these atheists are nothing more than bigots with an inflated opinion of their intellectual "prowess" who use the cheap end of science to attack theists with, much like religious fundamentalists lash out at anyone who dares to disagree with their opinions. They think they somehow represent science, but they really don't.

 

[gmilam]

When are people going to accept that science is neutral on the subject of "god"? Science is the study of the natural world. Anything outside the natural world (IF there is anything) is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

 

[Enmos]

The first thing that comes to mind is the confidence that many atheists display, a certainty that they are right and know better than anyone else.
This is in stark conflict with the spirit of science of not presuming to have "all the answers already".

Excuse me? That is certainly not my experience. In my experience it is the theists that are often overly sure of themselves regarding things they cannot possibly know.
Most atheists I know are actually indifferent to the whole God business and when asked they just say that theist's arguments do nothing to convince them.
Tell me.. why should people believe in God? Just because?

 

[drumbeat]

The default is to not believe, there's not some kind of duality going on.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No they don't.

Explain?

jan.

 

[yaracuy]

When are people going to accept that scince is neutral on the subject of "god"? Science is the study of the natural world. Anything outside the natural world (IF there is anything) is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

I agree with you when you work in the lab you work with matter and you are trying to modify the subject (material ) and you can appreciate nature how well is organized.

 

[gmilam]

I agree with you when you work in the lab you work with matter and you are trying to modify the subject (material ) and you can appreciate nature how well is organized.

So, why do theists complain that science doesn't include "god" when it is obvious that it is outside the realm of science?

 

[wynn]

Excuse me? That is certainly not my experience. In my experience it is the theists that are often overly sure of themselves regarding things they cannot possibly know.
Most atheists I know are actually indifferent to the whole God business and when asked they just say that theist's arguments do nothing to convince them.
Tell me.. why should people believe in God? Just because?

You apparently need to spend more time with Q and Cris then. And SnakeLord. :bugeye:

 

[wynn]

So, why do theists complain that science doesn't include "god" when it is obvious that it is outside the realm of science?

Do theists complain about that?

 

[gmilam]

Do theists complain about that?

Have you read the "Should science be only for atheists" thread?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106809

 

[Enmos]

You apparently need to spend more time with Q and Cris then. And SnakeLord. :bugeye:

Q, Chris and Snakelord are most atheists? Ok...
And you didn't answer my question.

 

[drumbeat]

With the exception of 'tao-ism', and, i think, buddhism, all the other belief systems united when it came to the definition of God.

No they don't.

Explain?

You claimed all belief systems bar two unite in the definition of God.
Where did you get that from?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

In this sense, there is no individual religious tradition that would be right at the exclusion of all others.

I agree.
Invincible ignorance is ignorance that is involuntary. The person is morally innocent. Here is an article on it from "This Rock" magazine by Jimmy Akin:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp
"Can Outsiders Be Insiders?" by the Rev. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (article):
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html
Salvation Outside the Church? by the Rev. Francis A. Sullivan, S.J. (book):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809133040/104-1679304-2719116?v=glance
For the Church's teaching on the salvation of non-Christians, see paragraphs 839-848 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially this section:

"This affirmation [no salvation outside the Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation.

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men" (CCC 847-848).

For the Church's teaching on the fate of unbaptized babies, please see paragraph 1261 of the CCC:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

For an overview of the historical development of the Church's teaching on the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Latin, "Outside the Church, no salvation"), I recommend the article "Can Outsiders Be Insiders" by Fr. Peter Stravinskas:
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

 

[Alex3]

Since atheism is neither a creed or a "discipline", or anything else how can there be a conflict?
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god.
Atheists, however, are individuals and each and every one of those individuals may or may not hold beliefs that conflict with science.
You're asking a specious question.

I would tell according to the beliefs i contain that this is just a belief which denies the existence of God. Science is vivid proof of it's existence. So these are totally opposite views.

 

[Sarkus]

Science is vivid proof of it's existence.

:shrug: You're going to need to explain that one, Alex3.

Science:
1. Observe
2. Formulate falsifiable hypothesis
3. Test hypothesis
4. Observe
5. Rinse and repeat.


Can't see any proof of God in there. :/

 

[IceLight020]

:shrug: You're going to need to explain that one, Alex3.

Science:
1. Observe
2. Formulate falsifiable hypothesis
3. Test hypothesis
4. Observe
5. Rinse and repeat.


Can't see any proof of God in there. :/

I think you have to realize that God is based on faith.

Not being critical, but since he is based on faith...

He cannot be proved; thus in consequence, means he also cannot be disproved. =]

Faith- belief that is not based on proof
Proof- evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Faith

Since you and I are not dead, we both cannot say he can be disproved either, now can we? For all we know, we could be wrong. We could be right. We all could be wrong. We all could be right.

If you think about it logically, when you get out of bed, you have faith your legs will support and help you stand. Why? Because they have yet to fail you. But we don't know if they will fail you later. That is faith. Believing your legs will work "that" day. Then having faith your legs will support you the "next" day and ad infinitum.

Want to know what my religious views are?

No simple word can describe my views.

 

[Sarkus]

I think you have to realize that God is based on faith.

Not being critical, but since he is based on faith...

He cannot be proved; thus in consequence, means he also cannot be disproved. =]

Perhaps you missed that my post was in response to someone saying that "Science is vivid proof of it's [God's] existence."

I fully appreciate that the concept of God sits outside science - is neither provable nor disprovable by science. That was not the point of my post.

My post didn't say "This is science - it disproves God" - it just said that I couldn't see a proof of God in the scientific method, as seemed to be claimed earlier.