Empirical Proof and Truth

[bgbarber]

What is an atheist's opinion on the insistence of the existence of empirical proof before the belief in a faith, concept or school of thought?

[davo]

What is an atheist's opinion on the insistence of the existence of empirical proof before the belief in a faith, concept or school of thought?

Who's opinion? what?

Dunno why you appear to think things are black and white?

faith = a type of belief .. belief despite any evidence.

atheism = not having a belief in a god or gods

that could be for many reasons, over many things.

I have no idea what you are asking to be honest

[bgbarber]

I asked this question in the forum "Ask an Atheist" - this was promptly moved to the "Fantasy Island" forum. This was an honest intellectual question that would appear has been censored - I just joined this forum in the hope to debate intellectually - I hope members are not blinded via dogma.

[Fearless]

Ha, you think we were born yesterday... nice try.. done a bit of browsing lately?

[davo]

You were answered, but you seem a little 'way out there'.

Your question was not censored, it was placed in the appropriate area on the site for people that don't make a lot of sense, have faulty reasoning and don't understand logic.

[bgbarber]

Sorry - I do not understand - what do you mean?

[bgbarber]

Where is the "fault reasoning" in asking a question on where atheism stands on using empiricism as the source of all reasoning that it makes it's arguments upon?

[Justin]

Empirical proofs by definition exist. Insisting on it is therefore valid. Since you say "before" all those other things I'd say yes this should proceed beliefs whatever their source (and especially faith based).

But since I doubt you understood your own question (which barely constituted a meaningful inquiry) I find it hard to imagine that you'd understand the answer.

Tsiehta returns?

[bgbarber]

I understand my question fully and it something that a lot of atheists do not. Question for you - Do you believe in atoms?

[davo]

OK I will try and break it down for you.

Really what I am saying is your initial statement/question does not make any real sense, in fact, it makes an assumption of people, then gets them to respond to the assumption you have made on claims you have made before defining exactly what the properties of your claim are.

This is yet another example of faulty reasoning.

You are better off explaining why your claims based on no evidence are worth considering as truth as a start, then I can judge if there is reason to believe it.

Do you believe in the flying pink unicorn?

What happened if I came up to you and said 'what is a religious persons opinion on the insistence of the existence of empirical proof before the belief in the flying pink unicorn? (may Her Hooves trod lightly)

would you turn around and go 'What are you talking about?' what evidence have you got for your claims to start with that this unicorn exists?

Would that be unreasonable? or do you think the person should start by explaining their opinion on the insistence of the existence of empirical proof of the unicorn?

Does that sentence even make sense? no. Please slow down and try speaking properly.

[bgbarber]

I do not mean to upset you guys. From a distance I can see the responses are rather emotional and a little aggressive - signs of shakey intellectual ground. To immediately label me as having a "lack of understanding" is a little arrogant and dare I say it "childish".

[wearestardust]

I asked this question in the forum "Ask an Atheist" - this was promptly moved to the "Fantasy Island" forum. This was an honest intellectual question that would appear has been censored - I just joined this forum in the hope to debate intellectually - I hope members are not blinded via dogma.

Well, you asked your question in a way that strongly suggests that you have a theist position to support. And instead of saying hello, you just unzipped and flopped your question out on the table. Again, not a friendly act. I am sure someone will buy you flowers if you've been planted here incorrectly.

The reason your question sounds theist is that it doesn't make sense in terms of normal, everyday views on rationality and science (which is just a special and more organised species of rationality). The 'theisty' bit is the suggestion that 'they', someone, insists on "empirical proof" before believing in something. This is a particular hangup of theists who want to mount an argument along these lines:

1. not everything is proven with certainty
2. so some things are uncertain
3. so, like, science tells us nothing
4. therefore god
5. dude, OK?

Now, while people talk about proof, what they really mean (outside mathematics) is whether or not on the evidence something probably is or is not the case. Nothing can be known with complete certainty (again, outside mathematics). All knowledge is provisional. Some knowledge is very certain and the world would have to be a very strange place for it to be wrong (eg: ordering of keys on a keyboard); some knowledge is less certain. There are some things we just don't know.

Certainly this is the way that people who are in the business of finding out stuff eg scientists, economists, social researchers, etc think. The only people who have this preoccupation with proof are people who don't understand how knowledge is formed, and/or theists.

That's why your question straightaway said "theist". Just like someone who starts talking about increasing information content in the context of biology is almost certainly a creationist.

So, in summary: this athiest at least doesn't think much at all of the idea of absolute proof before belief: it doesn't exist.

Except by faith, perhaps;)

[Fearless]

I do not mean to upset you guys. From a distance I can see the responses are rather emotional and a little aggressive - signs of shakey intellectual ground. To immediately label me as having a "lack of understanding" is a little arrogant and dare I say it "childish".

To burst onto the forums with your condescending front is pretty arrogant in my books... you made your bed.

[bgbarber]

OK - Let me explain my point - If your proof of a concept relies on empirical evidence to support that concept would the lack of proof itself mean the concept is incorrect or may there be another possibility - the instruments used to measure the proof are limited?

[davo]

I understand my question fully and it something that a lot of atheists do not.

Do you believe in the flying pink unicorn?

Why not????? do you really need evidence for it? Why don't you believe in it????

Slow down, you may understand your question, but to be honest your question does not make sense to anyone but you at the moment.


Question for you - Do you believe in atoms?

I know they exist as there is overwhelming evidence of their existence.

Show us the evidence for your claims that even make it worth considering.

[bgbarber]

I asked some questions? I thought atheism prides itself on rationalizing and justifying positions. Why is it some atheists get so angry at opposition and challenge to their school of thought?

[davo]

OK - Let me explain my point - If your proof of a concept relies on empirical evidence to support that concept would the lack of proof itself mean the concept is incorrect or may there be another possibility - the instruments used to measure the proof are limited?

that totally depends on what you are claiming.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I can claim I had a cold last year, that's quite reasonable claim.

If I claim that last year I killed a lizard man, who was building a space ship in my backyard .. you would have to be rather unstable to accept it without evidence.

[bgbarber]

Of course they exist - but you cannot see them with your human eyes - do see where I am coming from?

[Justin]

Wikipedia: The word "empirical" denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.A just where else *can* you get raw data from?

We are angry at your inability to structure a basic question. You then go on to question the basis of material reality as if there were an alternative.

[davo]

I asked some questions? I thought atheism prides itself on rationalizing and justifying positions. Why is it some atheists get so angry at opposition and challenge to their school of thought?

But you haven't challenged anything.

You come in basically making full on statements and assumptions about people that are wrong, you do not state what claims you are talking about and expect people to put forward reasoning and logic over something that you have not even defined. When people point at your attitude and posts, you then say basically 'your just angry'.

Slow down, write more than one line and express your views while fleshing out your argument. Otherwise you just look and sound like you are making wild stabs at one liners, expecting a treatise as a response.

[Fearless]

I asked some questions? I thought atheism prides itself on rationalizing and justifying positions. Why is it some atheists get so angry at opposition and challenge to their school of thought?

Get over yourself, you came in here all guns blazing hoping to wind us up and instead you are receiving quite concise answers... don't now try to hind behind a wounded victim story.

You stepped into something you weren't prepared for, deal with it.

[wolty]

I asked some questions? I thought atheism prides itself on rationalizing and justifying positions. Why is it some atheists get so angry at opposition and challenge to their school of thought?

Nope, atheism does not pride itself on anything.
We don't get angry at opposition, just some of us get angry at ignorance.

Are you wrong in your assumptions? Yes.
Will it make any difference in how you think? I doubt it.
You don't seem to be here to learn, which is very sad on your behalf.

[Justin]

He's talking about "Atoms" young Mr Black...those things that CAN be seen with human eyes as aided by devices of our construction (just a bit more complicated than your specs)

Edit: Chasing trolls thru the Island *is* a fun sport!

[davo]

Of course they exist - but you cannot see them with your human eyes - do see where I am coming from?

No, as you are not explaining where you are coming from. What are you trying to say? If you can't see something with your eyes you can't tell it exists?

Like gravity?

So you can't see atoms? with what your eyes? we see atoms when we look at anything around us that is matter!


what about with technology?

http://www.mizozo.com/images/item_images/3000/2321_large.jpg

Here is a video that contains pictures of atoms :

IznUYchOBUY

[bgbarber]

"You don't seem to be here to learn, which is very sad on your behalf." - So the forum is set up so I can learn? - thanks - very appreciative.

Perhaps you may learn there are other schools of thought also (you may already know - I have no idea)

[Justin]

I see Mr Spock and myself just beamed down on the same beam!

[wolty]

"You don't seem to be here to learn, which is very sad on your behalf." - So the forum is set up so I can learn? - thanks - very appreciative.

Perhaps you may learn there are other schools of thought also (you may already know - I have no idea)

Now I hope that wasn't meant to be sarcastic, because that would be very unchristian.
And believe me I am always open to learning, any sort. it just has to be factual.

Perhaps.......... I could say the same thing.
But I doubt you are here to learn. Just unload stuff to get a reaction.

[Justin]

"So the forum is set up so I can learn? - thanks - very appreciative.

Glad to be of service...although it is evident your mind is too confused to absorb!
Perhaps you may learn there are other schools of thought also (you may already know - I have no idea)
And we have already said we put empirical evidence before those "schools of thought"...is that easy enough for you? :)

Ah...the merry chase

[davo]

Please show us what faith has given us in the way of say, medical advances bgbarber.

Then we will talk about how relevant making decisions and coming to conclusions based on it is ok?

[Justin]

Where'd he go...I'm sure the beastie was on this island somewhere...

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_7/WhereTheWildThingsArePoster2.jpg

[davo]

heh, they have no idea why do they?

I so better get back to this werk thing I am doing .. signing off, I should not get sucked in to watching lions with a theist and partaking.

oi oi oi

[wolty]

@ davo and WAS, we don't have to go someplace else to eat or even order out, they come right to the door.

[wearestardust]

@ davo and WAS, we don't have to go someplace else to eat or even order out, they come right to the door.

I was thinking exactly that. God will provide.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Where is the "fault reasoning" in asking a question on where atheism stands on using empiricism as the source of all reasoning that it makes it's arguments upon?

Atheism stands in the same place as you do on this when a snake oil salesman comes to your front door and tries to tell you that the oil he is selling will cure all your ailments and extend your life by 50%.

What is that position?

Given that the sales man has provided neither data, evidence, reasons or arguments to suggest his claim is true, you simply dismiss his claim and proceed without it.

No more. No less.

The same is true of your god. You may claim there is one. However given you have provided not a shred of a scrap of evidence, reasons, data OR arguments to suggest that such an entity exists, we merely proceed without it.

If however you are aware of any data, evidence, reasons or arguments to suggest the existence of said entity, please present them as we are of course AGOG to hear them. Quite simply: agog.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Of course they exist - but you cannot see them with your human eyes - do see where I am coming from?

Yes. Where you are “coming from” is a position that thinks that people here only lend credence to notions which are directly observable to them personally. This is not so.

This is why, for example, I asked you above not just for evidence, but also “Data, reasons and arguments” for the support of the god concept.

Science is not just made up of directly observable evidence, but direct observations of the indirect effects of the directly unobservable, among other things (quite a mouthful).

It seems someone, possibly through no fault of your own, has sold you on a straw man impression of what science and the scientific method is and you have quite rightly identified it as fallacious.

Rather than question the source of your impression of this however, you have run on here to try and show the faults in a worldview that few if any people here actually hold and because of this you have been met with impatience.

You have my sympathy in this. When you realised the faults in the strawman of our position that you were sold on, you were probably really excited and thought to yourself “I have to get myself over to an atheist forum right away and show them all where they are wrong”.

When you say therefore…

Why is it some atheists get so angry at opposition and challenge to their school of thought?

… you have it entirely backwards. They are getting angry at being forced, not for the first time, to trawl through a school of thought that they have never espoused but you appear to be assigning to them anyway.

You are far from being the first to do this here.

The scientific method is to propose and then test theories that are based on all the data, evidence, arguments AND reasons we have available. The proposed theory can not assume any such data that it does not have and it should not ignore any it does.

At this time I am aware of not a shred of a scrap of any reason, data, evidence or argument upon which to base a god theory.

[bgbarber]

My argument is not about scientific method - it is about the limitations of it. I have no beef science - I have a beef with science crossing it's boundries and attempting to discredit other schools of thought -this happens even now and then (attempts to sell books etc) and as a result arguments will be put forth to put science in perspective.

The "Data,Reasons, Arguments" are based around the limitations of science (perception) as such. This is a philosophical argument that so happens to defend the existance of faith based beliefs.

Whoever this straw man is - I hope he finds his brain.

[Loki]

Tell me why you accept the existence of things which can't be perceived or experienced in any way.

[bgbarber]

The term perception is probably the extreme ends of the debate. "Measurement" may be a better term in that I accept the possibility of the existance of things that cannot be currently measured. Just using a previous example - we accept the existance of atoms although we cannot see them (with a microscope yes). If this is the case - what else is out there that we yet have no immediate perception or knowledge of - we may feel it perhaps - but how do you measure that?

These are questions that should really be considered. As an example for science to demand proof from faith religion using scientific method is nonsensical - if this were possible religion would be part of the natural sciences - it is not.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I see no reason why the scientific method as I described it can not be applied to philosophy either.

As I said, the entire method is to take everything you know to be true and to build an explanatory theory on top of it which takes into account only what you know, does not assume anything you do not know, and does not ignore anything you do.
´
I would say the same method is true of philosophy.

Nor do I find philosophy and science to be non-overlapping either. Philosophy has to be constrained by what we know to be true of our universe. One informs the other therefore.

However that all said, my point still stands in BOTH science and philosophy which is:

I am aware of no evidence, data, ARGUMENT or REASONS by which to lend ANY credence to the notion that there is a god, nor have you provided any. If you are aware of any then, as ever, I request you present them as I am quite simply agog to hear them.

[bgbarber]

Philosophy has to be constrained by what we know to be true of our universe.

Oops - no not at all - this is what the whole school of philosophical skepticism is based upon - the opposite assertion.

A popular culture example is the Matrix Triology which uses some core philosophical skepticism concepts in it story.

[Loki]

Tell me why you accept the existence of things which can't be perceived or experienced in any way.

Not the "whole school of philosophical skepticism", you personally.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Then you are in the realm of fantasy and calling it philosophy.

If you enter into any realm of human philosophy then it is indeed constrained by what we know to be true. We do not philosophise, for example, on the meaning of being human by starting from the premise of how great it is that we are all Bovines.

However this is tangential to my point.

Again I repeat the point:

There is nothing being offered to me, not just by you, in the realm of data, evidence, argument OR reasons by which I can lend even the remotest amount of credence to the hypothesis that there is a god.

And again I repeat the request:

If you become aware of any such thing, please do return and present it as I am agog to hear it.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Science is not about belief, even in the pre-suppositions of science don't have to be believed.
Science consists of a set of procedures [which varies somewhat between disciplines], which are termed collectively "the scientific method".

And facts and scientific theories [which has a specific meaning in science different to the vernacular] consist of the body of knowledge of science.

As science is an ongoing process, the following may not be in the exact order every time, but:-

A scientist notices an apparent pattern in nature or repeatable phenomena, or a class of similarities.

The scientist then proposes at least two hypotheses to explain what is going on. One of these, must be the falsifying hypothesis. The other[s] is/are the alternate hypotheses.

These hypotheses are then tested, using all available knowledge of nature gained by further observations [and in most cases] experiment. Facts that both support and do not support the hypotheses have to be considered. If there is no evidence against the hypothesis, and support for it, it may, after pee review be promoted to theory.

If there is contrary evidence [ie: favoring the null hypothesis], then the alternate hypothesis [or even if it has become theory] must be either modified or rejected.

If a theory is excepted, then it may be called " a theory that enjoys robust support from the evidence. However, all scientific theories are tentative, and subject to review if further data comes to light. All scientific theories are subject to an on-going peer-review process.

As all scientific theories are tentative, then they are, by definition not truths or proofs in the absolute sense. It may be, of course, the some theories are exactly true, but we almost always have no way of knowing this, or how close the theories are to truth.

Many modern scientific theories are adept at describing nature. They also can give very precise predictions. Thirdly [and a little more controversially], many theories do have explanatory power in that they perform their explanatory role with far more parsimony than [for example, religious notions of nature and the beginnings of life].

In Newton's day, he could measure to an accuracy of one part in a thousand. Today Newtonian phenomina is accurate to one part in 10 to the 7th power, and Quantum Mechanics to 10 *14 (Penrose, 1999: p.26).

Now because the scientific process is so sucessful, we can calim that the assumptions we made about our ability to describe, predict [and to a certain extent] explain nature using the scientific method, means that are pre-suppositions are also probably true.

So at no stage in the scientific process is belief necessary or wanted. there is no faith involved. Science is not a religion. Science deliberately sets out to counter "confirmation bias" as much as is possible.

Some scientist may use words like "proof", "belief", "truth", but these are meant in the context of all I have said above.

Proof in science can be used in two ways: meaning "to test", and meaning that the theory has been accepted becuase of the sucessful test.

Scintists don't believe theories, they accept them, according to the data available at the time.

In many areas of science, it is probably true that proofs are nearly absolute for all practical purposes. But so long as humans are not omniscient, it is logically false to make such an absolute claim for the sake of prudence. Science can and does make mistakes, which given a little time, are almost always corrected.

If we therefore contrast the methodology of science to that of the practice of religion, we see a stark contrast. In theology, there is absolute tenets, like a belief in god, or some supernatural phenomena. These are claimed to be absolute facts, and not open to question. Therefore there is built-in confirmation bias in religion. Religion assumes a supernatural world, for which there is no reliable evidence except 'experience" and "scripture" or "authority" from a priest, and so on.

Therefore the two systems of thought are UTTERLY ALIEN AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER.

Science, especially modern science, is counter-intuitive. If it were not, then people would be able to merely look and guess, and be able to reveal the truth about nature. This is exactly what religions do, they make some wild guesses about nature [and the no-existent supernatural], and without any valid test, declare such mind-farts as ultimate truths. Thus religions fail utterly to understand nature, and utterly lose track with reality.

Because the religious lose track of reality, and do not understand nature, this hardly makes skeptics of religion confident in religious morality, even before they examine that, in ethics also, religions are sadly wanting. Religions tend to be racist, sexist, and bigoted, not to mention cruel. They tend to persecute skeptics, regard non-believers as lower forms of life, and poison every area of public life, from education, to good government.

Yet religion claims it should not be challenged. And with utter hypocracy from its own flawed reasoning, will use every opportunity to try to emasculate any science that tries to contradict its dogma.

[bgbarber]

There is nothing being offered to me, not just by you, in the realm of data, evidence, argument OR reasons by which I can lend even the remotest amount of credence to the hypothesis that there is a god

I beg to differ on lack of "argument or reason" which serves to not exclude the possibility of a "god". As an example using the "Brain in a Vat" philosophical exercise all scientific method (and perception) could be considered inside the vat - what is outside is outside the realm of measurement of scientific method. - This is a valid argument in my opinion and also that of a lot of philosophers (Descartes – who also was a mathematician , physicist ).

[bgbarber]

Just as you personally accept scientific method (as I do also), I also having studied philiosophical skecptism to be sound in logic. I would consider my self blinkered if I defined my understanding of the universe simply via the limits of my own perception. Only via awareness of these limits I would hope, allows me to transcend such, and from such new learning can be achieved.

I hate quoting but this is one of my favs'

"Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas. One seeks the most general ideas of operation which will bring together in simple, logical and unified form the largest possible circle of formal relationships. In this effort toward logical beauty spiritual formulas are discovered". Albert E.

[bgbarber]

Hey - detailed argument. Just to repeat I have faith in scientific method. My point again is that it when it attempts to debunk other schools of thought I will bring to table arguments to counter that.

Not sure about your statment religion (damn said that word again) not claiming it should never be challanged. The term itself has many meaning - what is your definition?

[Mentally Saturated]

I get the feeling the OP is almost blissfully unaware of the purpose of the QUOTE button. A little more coherence could be achieved for readers of this... "discussion"... if he could clarify his reponses by quoting each person in turn (can be done all within one post - ever heard of multi-tabbed browsing, or even the multi-quote button ?), as opposed to simply having multiple posts in a row, often addressing different issues/questions/remarks by different posters (not really the done thing on internet forums).

It would be muchly appreciated.

Gary

[bgbarber]

yeah - I cannot work it out - I would have thought that when you hit "quick reply" is associates the reply with the original message - it does not. When I hit Multi-Quote the button just turns red?? - help?

[bgbarber]

I get the feeling the OP is almost blissfully unaware of the purpose of the QUOTE button. A little more coherence could be achieved for readers of this... "discussion"... if he could clarify his reponses by quoting each person in turn (can be done all within one post - ever heard of multi-tabbed browsing, or even the multi-quote button ?), as opposed to simply having multiple posts in a row, often addressing different issues/questions/remarks by different posters (not really the done thing on internet forums).

It would be muchly appreciated.

Gary

Sorry got it "QUOTE" button - just used to the hierarchical BB approach.

[Loki]

So while you accept science and it's so far pretty good and improving attempt to describe reality, you base your belief on the bits science hasn't managed to objectively describe yet. It must be getting pretty claustrophobic in the gaps.

[Mentally Saturated]

yeah - I cannot work it out

Well, it's certainly one way of getting your post count up, if that's what floats your boat.. ;)

But I'm sorry, I digress... :D

Gary

[bgbarber]

So while you accept science and it's so far pretty good and improving attempt to describe reality, you base your belief on the bits science hasn't managed to objectively describe yet. It must be getting pretty claustrophobic in the gaps.

Liberating for choice actually - as science looks deeper and deeper into the quantum world things start to look increasingly chaotic but for one exception - the effect of the observer.

[bgbarber]

Well, it's certainly one way of getting your post count up, if that's what floats your boat.. ;)

But I'm sorry, I digress... :D

Gary

All good - my mistake.

[davo]

yeah - I cannot work it out - I would have thought that when you hit "quick reply" is associates the reply with the original message - it does not. When I hit Multi-Quote the button just turns red?? - help?

quick reply opens the smaller box at the bottom of the forum for a simple reply, not the advanced reply with more options.

The Multi Quote allows you to select multiple posts to quote from, then you hit the quote button and all those selected posts are put in the editing box.

The quote button selects just that post and automatically puts it in the editing box

[bgbarber]

quick reply opens the smaller box at the bottom of the forum for a simple reply, not the advanced reply with more options.

The Multi Quote allows you to select multiple posts to quote from, then you hit the quote button and all those selected posts are put in the editing box.

The quote button selects just that post and automatically puts it in the editing box

Thanks Davo - I have sorted my 10 thumbs :)

[Loki]

Liberating for choice actually - as science looks deeper and deeper into the quantum world things start to look increasingly chaotic but for one exception - the effect of the observer.

Bunk.

[Atrax Robustus]

"Measurement" may be a better term in that I accept the possibility of the existance of things that cannot be currently measured.

So you accept temperature then. Goodoh. Do you have a bottle of heat that you can loan me?

Just using a previous example - we accept the existance of atoms although we cannot see them (with a microscope yes). As I recall my readings, we couldn't see bacteria or microbes once either. Back in those days, the effects were often attributed to supernatural cause and/or the will of a deity.

If this is the case - what else is out there that we yet have no immediate perception or knowledge of - we may feel it perhaps - but how do you measure that?

:eek: I don't think you read this before you submitted it - did you? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Why would we bother attempting to measure something we don't know - or suspect, through interpretation of empirical evidence - is actually there? My response might come across as facetious or patronising but . . . are you suggesting that I should seriously consider designing an opthalmoscope for use on "third eye's"?

These are questions that should really be considered.

Are you serious? :eek:

As an example for science to demand proof from faith religion using scientific method is nonsensical - if this were possible religion would be part of the natural sciences - it is not.

Bullshit - on any interpretation! Give me one good reason why application of science to examine religious claims is nonsensical?

[Atrax Robustus]

What is a skeptic's opinion on the insistence of the existence of empirical proof before the belief in a faith, concept or school of thought?

Fixed your initial question for you. You do realise that there are a huge number of atheists who simply couldn't give a shit about whether a faith based religion can, or can't, provide evidence to support their respective belief/dogma? They simply don't believe in any deity, while getting on with their lives.

A skeptic however, (who might or might not be an atheist) is very likely to insist on that evidence.

If you intend to ask what an atheist's opinion is, then first of all you should gain a clear understanding of what atheism actually is.

[bgbarber]

Fixed your initial question for you. You do realise that there are a huge number of atheists who simply couldn't give a shit about whether a faith based religion can, or can't, provide evidence to support their respective belief/dogma? They simply don't believe in any deity, while getting on with their lives.

A skeptic however, (who might or might not be an atheist) is very likely to insist on that evidence.

If you intend to ask what an atheist's opinion is, then first of all you should gain a clear understanding of what atheism actually is.

"Fixed your initial question for you." - this is too shocking to respond to - "fixing" my question? - oh dear - even if you do not like the question or it makes you feel uncomfortable - please do not alter it.

[Atrax Robustus]

FFS - Get over yourself bgbarber!

When someone who has learned WHAT to think voluntarily enters into discourse with people who have learned HOW to think, they should expect to have suppositions and premises challenged.

If you don't agree with my 'correction' then challenge me! Hell, one or both of us might learn something from the ensuing discussion.

Of course the other option is to go back to your happy place where everyone is going to keep patting you on the shoulder and saying "there, there, we know, those naughty <insert name of non-conformist group here> . . .they should know better".

[wearestardust]

@bgbear

A suggestion.

Usually, when someone wants to make an argument, one says what one thinks and then provides an argument for it. The exemplar is the use of abstracts in learned journal articles.

What is not usual is to leap into the middle of the argument with some context-free question - like you did. It is page 6 of this thread and it is still not clear what your point is. I gather from page 5 it may be some form of NOMA issue. If that's it, fine: we can discuss that. But while you do us the discourtesy of telling us what your issue is, and just keep batting issues around, then it is going to be very difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

[Davoz]

My argument is not about scientific method - it is about the limitations of it. I have no beef [with] science - I have a beef with science crossing it's boundries and attempting to discredit other schools of thought -this happens even now and then (attempts to sell books etc) and as a result arguments will be put forth to put science in perspective.

The "Data,Reasons, Arguments" are based around the limitations of science (perception) as such. This is a philosophical argument that so happens to defend the existance of faith based beliefs.


Just to repeat I have faith in scientific method. My point again is that it when it attempts to debunk other schools of thought I will bring to table arguments to counter that.


I suppose this issue crops up here because atheists generally have more affinity with a scientific worldview than with nonscientific ones. That all scientific theories are defeasible and constantly vulnerable to refutation is an old story and hardly needs repeating, but what you seem to be alluding to is that for some decades now specific branches of science have extended their explorations into areas traditionally considered to be off-limits by some who would prefer them to remain off-limits ( an example would be the gradual ‘encroachment’ of neuroscience on philosophy of mind and consciousness, which has certainly worried some philosophers).

Your comments suggest that you think some areas of human experience, culture and knowledge are ‘illegitimate’ fields of enquiry for scientists. So when you write nonspecifically of ‘science crossing its boundaries’ it would be more informative if you were to expand on this and give some actual examples of scientists (not just ‘science’, please!) who, in your view, putatively exceed their mandate as scientists, and to explain whether when you say 'debunking' you means critically analysing or something else.

[bgbarber]

I suppose this issue crops up here because atheists generally have more affinity with a scientific worldview than with nonscientific ones. That all scientific theories are defeasible and constantly vulnerable to refutation is an old story and hardly needs repeating, but what you seem to be alluding to is that for some decades now specific branches of science have extended their explorations into areas traditionally considered to be off-limits by some who would prefer them to remain off-limits ( an example would be the gradual ‘encroachment’ of neuroscience on philosophy of mind and consciousness, which has certainly worried some philosophers).

Your comments suggest that you think some areas of human experience, culture and knowledge are ‘illegitimate’ fields of enquiry for scientists. So when you write nonspecifically of ‘science crossing its boundaries’ it would be more informative if you were to expand on this and give some actual examples of scientists (not just ‘science’, please!) who, in your view, putatively exceed their mandate as scientists, and to explain whether when you say 'debunking' you means critically analysing or something else.

On the contrary scientific method is part of human experience. If you read one of my earlier posts I stated that it has the possibility to expand that enquiry.

Atheists do not have a monopoly on science .

[Jaar-Gilon]

Yeah and they don't have a monopoly on believing crazy shit either!

[Atrax Robustus]

On the contrary scientific method is part of human experience. If you read one of my earlier posts I stated that it has the possibility to expand that enquiry.

Atheists do not have a monopoly on science .

When will you people understand this? Most atheists couldn't give a flying f**k about science!

[Davoz]

On the contrary scientific method is part of human experience. If you read one of my earlier posts I stated that it has the possibility to expand that enquiry.

Sure, but you also wrote specifically that that you had ‘a beef with science crossing its boundaries and attempting to discredit other schools of thought’. To expand their enquiries, scientists must often cross boundaries into new areas. What would be an example of a crossing of boundaries that you disapprove of, and how is critical analysis different from discrediting other's views?


Atheists do not have a monopoly on science .

That's a relief!

[Peter A]

When will you people understand this? Most atheists couldn't give a flying f**k about science!

No, I don't agree with this comment. If most of them didn't care about science they would not have websites like this one repudiating religion, and care so much about the way science is (deliberately) misrepresented and misinterpreted by religious zealots - Creationism in biology classes! - and New Age losers - Quantum Flapdoodle.

[Darwinsbulldog]

No, I don't agree with this comment. If most of them didn't care about science they would not have websites like this one repudiating religion, and care so much about the way science is (deliberately) misrepresented and misinterpreted by religious zealots - Creationism in biology classes! - and New Age losers - Quantum Flapdoodle.

I agree with you. Scientific endeavor-the search for reality via a methodology that tries [and mostly succeeds] to control for things confirmation bias [which are so prevalent in religious discourse] has demonstrated that the myths and dogma have no place in reality.

So even if an atheist "does not give a fuck about science", it is the methodology of science, and knowledge gained from that methodology, that makes atheism reasonable and intellectually robust and honest. So the atheist who is apathetic about science is supported by science whether he knows it or not. Or whether he cares or not.

Certainly there were ancient Greek philosophers who were skeptical of gods, and with good reason, but atheism has much more breadth and depth now because science has de-bunked so many myths and dogmas, and provided robust theories about our world which combat ignorance.

The origins of the universe, our world, and life may not be absolutely proved by science-there are still gaps-but even with gaps, science is far superior to the mind-pus called religion that has dominated human affairs for thousands of years, and caused untold misery and cruelty.

Science combats the persecution of races, by demonstrating that racial differences are trivial, science combats sexism by providing evidence that men and women are different, but equal, and science recognizes that sexual variations are normal, and that religious persecution of gays is irrational and barbaric. One can go on and on....

In short, science is part of the enlightenment, that helps keep the darkness and bigotry of religion at bay.

For an atheist to be apathetic or uncaring about science is beyond my understanding.

[wolty]

In short, science is part of the enlightenment, that helps keep the darkness and bigotry of religion at bay.

For an atheist to be apathetic or uncaring about science is beyond my understanding.


oh yeah, have to agree wholeheartedly. The world opens up immeasurably when an interest in learning becomes foremost in ones mind. It never stops either. You cannot switch it off.

The only bit open to conjecture is what part of the world, atheists are passionate about. But I am sure they all appreciate the "wow" factor.

[Darwinsbulldog]

oh yeah, have to agree wholeheartedly. The world opens up immeasurably when an interest in learning becomes foremost in ones mind. It never stops either. You cannot switch it off.

The only bit open to conjecture is what part of the world, atheists are passionate about. But I am sure they all appreciate the "wow" factor.

Theists face a bleak existence. A universe where they are just a god-puppet, and ironically, the puppet does not exist OR god does exist, and they are a puppet of a childish, psychopathic deity.

[wolty]

Theists face a bleak existence.



mmmmmmm They don't seem real happy to me. All that worry about getting into heaven,sin,satan and atheists. They have a lot to worry about.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I beg to differ on lack of "argument or reason" which serves to not exclude the possibility of a "god".

But I am not asking for evidence or arguments that the concept is possible. I am already aware there COULD be a god. What I am saying is that I am not aware of any data, evidence arguments or reasons to lend any credence to the notion that there actually IS.

At no point have I thought, or do I think, that anything known to me excludes the possibility.

[Davoz]

The origins of the universe, our world, and life may not be absolutely proved by science-there are still gaps-but even with gaps, science is far superior to the mind-pus called religion that has dominated human affairs for thousands of years, and caused untold misery and cruelty.

Science combats the persecution of races, by demonstrating that racial differences are trivial, science combats sexism by providing evidence that men and women are different, but equal, and science recognizes that sexual variations are normal, and that religious persecution of gays is irrational and barbaric. One can go on and on....

In short, science is part of the enlightenment, that helps keep the darkness and bigotry of religion at bay.

For an atheist to be apathetic or uncaring about science is beyond my understanding.


I agree unhesitatingly. Elsewhere I’ve argued against the - in my view mistaken - ‘all paths lead equally to truth’ idea, which we owe largely to a postmodernist relativism, and in support of the idea that many branches of human knowledge-seeking which have ontological explanatory ambitions have largely adopted, or sought to emulate, important aspects of scientific methodology in order to remain relevant in today's world. They are, in other words, reactive. I include theology, because current ideas in this area that I come across look simply like attempts to 'catch up' with what scientists are telling us daily about objective reality. I see this as science 'setting the agenda'. It is an idea described succinctly by the evolutionary biologist Edward O Wilson: ‘Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples’ (1998:45).

That the best and most robust of scientific theories and facts are intrinsically defeasible, falsifiable or refutable by design was one of Karl Popper's important contributions to our understanding of the issue in the last century, and underscores the strength of scientific methodology. It means, as others have often said in posts, that 'truth' in science has always to be understood in this way as provisional. This is readily distinguishable from the observation that scientific methodology is fundamentally 'truth-forming', truth-conducive', or 'truth-approximating'. Philosopher Nicholas Rescher points out that reality will always be in excess of any description of it that we can elaborate, which tells us that the strength of the method will always be more important than the destination.

Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

[Darwinsbulldog]

I agree unhesitatingly. Elsewhere I’ve argued against the - in my view mistaken - ‘all paths lead equally to truth’ idea, which we owe largely to a postmodernist relativism, and in support of the idea that many branches of human knowledge-seeking which have ontological explanatory ambitions have largely adopted, or sought to emulate, important aspects of scientific methodology in order to remain relevant in today's world. They are, in other words, reactive. I include theology, because current ideas in this area that I come across look simply like attempts to 'catch up' with what scientists are telling us daily about objective reality. I see this as science 'setting the agenda'. It is an idea described succinctly by the evolutionary biologist Edward O Wilson: ‘Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples’ (1998:45).

That the best and most robust of scientific theories and facts are intrinsically defeasible, falsifiable or refutable by design was one of Karl Popper's important contributions to our understanding of the issue in the last century, and underscores the strength of scientific methodology. It means, as others have often said in posts, that 'truth' in science has always to be understood in this way as provisional. This is readily distinguishable from the observation that scientific methodology is fundamentally 'truth-forming', truth-conducive', or 'truth-approximating'. Philosopher Nicholas Rescher points out that reality will always be in excess of any description of it that we can elaborate, which tells us that the strength of the method will always be more important than the destination.

Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

I think what most post-modernists don't get is the fundamental progress made by science. They might note [correctly] that a local umwelt [Ger: sense of place or environment] is often superior to the generalized scientific understanding in many practical ways. In other words, a highly educated scientist, brought up in a temperate or tropical environment, will not survive as well as an Inuit in the frozen environment of the far North. Has has not the skills to build an Igloo, nor how to kill a seal for meat.

Jarad Diamond noted that the locals of New Guinea had quite a good grasp of species [especially birds] that closely resembled what an ornithologist like himself would recognize as a species for that locale.

This is all true, however, the various umwelts mostly look at external characters, [adaptionist] whereas an evolutionary biologists will classify a bird not only on its adaptive fit to its environment, but also its evolutionary history, which will include internal anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, etc, etc.

Where umwelts fail is not in practical knowledge of environment or organism, but in making general rules and predictions. We can see this failure of the umwelt in the Bible, where bats are classified as birds, and insects described as having four legs, and so on. There is also no references to the Polar bear or the Platypus in the bible, because the umwelt of mid-east nomads of a few thousand years ago had no data on either of these creatures. Therefore they were not recorded in the bible, and that is why we can somewhat smugly say that the environmental technologies of indigenous tribes is indeed inferior to the depth, breadth, and explanitory power of science.

This is not to say that umwelts are useless, because every organism needs to have some good "Rule of thumb" "technological" or innate knowledge of species recognition [both its own, and predators and prey], sexual recognition, and environmental conditions, such as the bear knowing that winter is coming, and hence the need to hibernate, or the Wildebeest, the need to migrate. Animals that had no "sense of place" [even at an instinctive level] do not survive and reproduce.

So this is where I think Thomas Kuhn gets it badly wrong. Kuhn denies that progress in science means anything. That we are slaves to our paradigms. This may have been true of pre-scientific societies [especially religious ones], but less so in modern, scientific societies.

The explorers Burke and Wills died within meters of food and water that local aborigines [with their umwelt] could have shown them, had B & W been a little more respectful of local knowledge, which exceeded their umwelt of North West European conditions because knowledge of European climates, water sources, and edible flora and fauna is almost totally useless in the Australian bush.

But a scientific expidition, using our knowledge and understanding of modern science carefully, can allow us to survive in the Arctic wastes, the Australian bush, or indeed in outer space with equal facility, and where a mere umwelt could only have a local application. And indeed, there is no umwelt for outer space. We will make it up as we go along, from our science. In this manner at least, science is progressive, and it does approximate a greater truth.

[Atrax Robustus]

I've edited this out. Message was more appropriate as PM.

[bgbarber]

I agree unhesitatingly. Elsewhere I’ve argued against the - in my view mistaken - ‘all paths lead equally to truth’ idea, which we owe largely to a postmodernist relativism, and in support of the idea that many branches of human knowledge-seeking which have ontological explanatory ambitions have largely adopted, or sought to emulate, important aspects of scientific methodology in order to remain relevant in today's world. They are, in other words, reactive. I include theology, because current ideas in this area that I come across look simply like attempts to 'catch up' with what scientists are telling us daily about objective reality. I see this as science 'setting the agenda'. It is an idea described succinctly by the evolutionary biologist Edward O Wilson: ‘Science is neither a philosophy nor a belief system. It is a combination of mental operations that has become increasingly the habit of educated peoples’ (1998:45).

That the best and most robust of scientific theories and facts are intrinsically defeasible, falsifiable or refutable by design was one of Karl Popper's important contributions to our understanding of the issue in the last century, and underscores the strength of scientific methodology. It means, as others have often said in posts, that 'truth' in science has always to be understood in this way as provisional. This is readily distinguishable from the observation that scientific methodology is fundamentally 'truth-forming', truth-conducive', or 'truth-approximating'. Philosopher Nicholas Rescher points out that reality will always be in excess of any description of it that we can elaborate, which tells us that the strength of the method will always be more important than the destination.

Wilson, Edward O. 1998. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

I would have to disagree in the argument that science leads the way and sets the agenda in a general sense (excuse the pun) in the pursuit of knowledge and "truths". Science has made some fantastic discoveries and has disproved and proved many important theories - however the basis of theory is human thought (albeit sometimes from a basis of empirical observation). There are many categories / schools of human thought (theism, philosophy, psychology etc) that have laid the foundation and asked the questions for further investigation and debate, whether it be via science of any other human endeavour.
The argument which you are putting forwards sounds very similar to what is known as a type of determinism (a scientific one) and via this concept may well be an argument against that which argues that science “sets the agenda”.

[bgbarber]

@Bgb: would you agree that religion has had to adapt to advances and discoveries in the field of science, rather than vice versa?

Of course, you may provide evidence to the contrary should you be capable.

Yes - I agree that religion has adapted to discoveries of science. Religion as a human interpretation of our reality evolves as also does science. For example Newtonian physics had “the world” predictable and behaving according to proven laws and mathematics. As humans looked into the nature of matter more deeply (i.e. at the quantum level) things did not behave as predicted by Newtonian physics - science had to evolve and from this came quantum theory – from my layman’s understanding still many questions un-answered also though.

[Atrax Robustus]

Yes - I agree that religion has adapted to discoveries of science. Religion as a human interpretation of our reality evolves as also does science. For example . . . <snip>

. . . and a good example of religion adapting to scientific discovery?

[bgbarber]

. . . and a good example of religion adapting to scientific discovery?

The theories about exactly where the earth sits relative to the planets in our solar system, the sun and the "universe", are good examples of both science and religion evolving together to better understand where earth is in relative position to the prior mentioned.

[wearestardust]

I think what most post-modernists don't get is the fundamental progress made by science.

What postmodernists don't get is that just because science is not 100% correct all the time, that doesn't mean that any other idea is as good as another. This is precisely the error that pretty much all theists who go on about "proof" make as well.

Liked the rest of your post btw, just wanted to focus on this bit. A world without lawyers? Lets start with the postmodernists first.

[wearestardust]

This:

Yes - I agree that religion has adapted to discoveries of science. Religion as a human interpretation of our reality evolves as also does science. For example Newtonian physics had “the world” predictable and behaving according to proven laws and mathematics. As humans looked into the nature of matter more deeply (i.e. at the quantum level) things did not behave as predicted by Newtonian physics - science had to evolve and from this came quantum theory – from my layman’s understanding still many questions un-answered also though.

But what does this mean for you? What is your point? Do you actually have one? Or do you hope that randomly dribbling comments about the imperfectness and progress of science will result in us all suddenly saying "oh, we all thought science has all the anwers, we are wrong, so there is a god after all." I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

For heaven's sake, actually say something. And give us an indication of where you are going with all this instead of meandering. It's not just a demand of me or this forum; courteous and effective writing signposts to the reader what one is trying to say.

As for this:

The theories about exactly where the earth sits relative to the planets in our solar system, the sun and the "universe", are good examples of both science and religion evolving together to better understand where earth is in relative position to the prior mentioned.

I just nearly choked on my sushi. Really? Are you serious? Surely not? Religious institutions walked hand in hand with science to to develop a more accurate cosmology?

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know. Do you think the second statement of yours that I quoted is true?

[bgbarber]

This:



But what does this mean for you? What is your point? Do you actually have one? Or do you hope that randomly dribbling comments about the imperfectness and progress of science will result in us all suddenly saying "oh, we all thought science has all the anwers, we are wrong, so there is a god after all." I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

For heaven's sake, actually say something. And give us an indication of where you are going with all this instead of meandering. It's not just a demand of me or this forum; courteous and effective writing signposts to the reader what one is trying to say.

As for this:



I just nearly choked on my sushi. Really? Are you serious? Surely not? Religious institutions walked hand in hand with science to to develop a more accurate cosmology?

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to know. Do you think the second statement of yours that I quoted is true?

I only answered your question. Twisted my words and making assumptions and attacking my response using such is called leading the witness - no?

[bgbarber]

From a flawed premise (that atheists have a unified view on empirical proof as a basis for belief choices), this thread has wound on and on...

Time to declare, Mr BGB. Make your point and we can all get some sleep.

I am going to endugle (and indulge ) my self

On reflection Mr E,
If I am B and I were you and you were me,
Dividing Mr's aside then E = B.
In a mirror my reflection you could c me,
And via reflection so it be, one could c E.
So Mr E, a reflection constant that you c 2 be,
Reflects again, and squarely one can c,
Becomes again Mr B.

For what its worth - Einstein perhaps was looking in a mirror when he wrote a fundamental truth - that being the relationship between light, reflection and experience.:)

[Atrax Robustus]

The theories about exactly where the earth sits relative to the planets in our solar system, the sun and the "universe", are good examples of both science and religion evolving together to better understand where earth is in relative position to the prior mentioned.

Surely you jest?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

I do not think “adapt” is the correct word to describe the ever changing relationship between religion and science. Perhaps “retreat” is more apt.

It has been pointed out to me for example that the discourse between science and religion is entirely one direction in one sense. What is that sense?

Religion provides us with explanations for many things, as does Science. However this is entirely one directional. There are a multitude of things for which religion once had an explanation and for which science now holds the best explanation.

There is nothing to my knowledge, though maybe someone can correct me here, where the reverse is true. Nothing where science once had the best explanation for something but was usurped by a religious one.

There are 1000s of examples of this. The most commonly cited is the germ theory of disease. We once had a religious theory of possession explaining many illnesses and conditions. Science has shown the cause of these diseases to be genetic, viral or bacterial.

Other random examples were things like thinking the sun was a god looking down on us while lightining was the expression of anger from gods at either man or each other depending on which myths you subscribed to. Science has now shown the sun to be a fusion reactor of sorts and lightening to be the dispersion of charged particles in varying patterns.

There appears to be no examples to my awareness of science being usurped by a religious explanation. The only things available, like sickness, suns and lightning, is a host of things which science has not yet explained and so any explanation you care to make up you may as well label “the best”.

[bgbarber]

Surely you jest?

Yeah I got a bit carried away by unholy romances ;-) The point I was trying to make (diplomatically) was that religion did get it wrong but also did many scientists along the way (geocentrism, heliocentricism).

[bgbarber]

"Endugle" all you want. I shall attempt to craft a worthy meaning for this nelologism.

en·du·gle v. en·du·gled, en·dug·ling, en·dug·les
v.tr.1. To persist with an activity despite the lack of good it is doing anyone: he endugled the failed pizza into spag bol, soup, dumplings and three near-fatal doses of food-poisoning.

2. To do one's own side worse damage in a conflict than that inflicted by the enemy: With swords hacking wildly in the narrow confines of the Mk II Wooden Horse, the soldiers of Clan Endugle leapt from the hatch, bleeding copiously.

3. Roman Catholic Church To issue a hurried retraction which (notionally) retrospectively removes and earlier error from existence.

v.intr.1. To attempt to save face when all avenues of escape are long-since exhausted..
2.
a. To add fail to fail, in an attempt to erase failure.
b. To allow (oneself) a parting shot at one's own footwear.


I like your imagination. You may have a flair for the Arts ;-)

I still stand by all I have argued. I will admit when I believe I am wrong - often I am. Especially if I get too deep into areas I have little knowledge of (as is the case with a lot of science).

However in recent posts - I honestly believe my arguments have been sound.

I think the problem is that arguing for a "truth" or even what defines a "truth" using differing schools of thought and approaches will never come to agreement - this is why they are in fact different schools of thought or different approaches to knowledge attainment and truth - agree?