Is Atheism Unscientific?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think most scientists would agree that we are still finding new evidence for things all the time. So it would be foolish to assume that everything for which we have zero evidence does not exist.

It isn't foolish to assume those things don't exist, it would just be foolish if we continued to do so after some evidence has been collected. Every stance in science is a temporary one. Able to be replaced with a superior stance at any moment in time. It is this ability, to change our mind, that separates the scientist from the theist.

Inherent in this process is the idea that all positions are amenable to greater awareness. So there is no need to parse words and stress a mind that is able to be opened to new ideas. It is the fool that keeps that mind open in the shape of things for which no evidence may ever arise.

The things for which there is no evidence do not exist. Including string theory and dark matter, I might add.
 
it's not about having evidence "for" (that concept actually doesn't make sense), but about not having evidence against. if there is no observation that can disprove an explanation, that means there is no observable difference between that explanation being correct or not. so the logical choice is to ignore it.

True, so still means that it is foolish to say that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it. Like you said, "evidence for" is not how it usually works in science
 
It isn't foolish to assume those things don't exist,

I think it is because a lot of things are found in science. And a lot of theories are proven right by "findings" in science.

it would just be foolish if we continued to do so after some evidence has been collected.

Yes, obviously.

Every stance in science is a temporary one. Able to be replaced with a superior stance at any moment in time. It is this ability, to change our mind, that separates the scientist from the theist.

exactly, so it is always good to have an open mind and not dismiss something as not existing simply cos we haven't found the evidence yet.

It is the fool that keeps that mind open in the shape of things for which no evidence may ever arise.

Agreed, if it is likely that no evidence will ever arise, then it would be foolish. (Which is why I had highlight in bold, the word EVERYTHING, in my first post to you)

The things for which there is no evidence do not exist. Including string theory and dark matter, I might add.

Again I have to disagree with this assumption
 
people make a cult out of,-literally-, everything, and consequently the original meaning or purpose gets lost within all this tumult.:bawl:
 
Are you talking about atheism?

yup.

from godless to disbelief in god or any other form of deity.

(yeah...yeah..there are tons of definitions for atheism..like i said, a simple word, or adjective that has been driven into a cult which, again, has been split into more cults, blah blah)

i mean, ffs, there are so many forms of atheism now...weak, strong; implicit, explicit; practical, theoretical; :puke:

>_>
 
people make a cult out of,-literally-, everything, and consequently the original meaning or purpose gets lost within all this tumult.
Excuse me, but I must flash my Linguistics Moderator badge at this point. A "cult" is characterized by at least some of the following:
  • Religious rites and ceremonies
  • Great veneration of a person, ideal or thing
  • A community bound together by that veneration
  • A community living outside conventional society
  • A charismatic leader
The only definition of "cult" that could apply to atheism is "a sect considered to be false, unorthodox or extremist." I suppose that's how the religionists see us, but that's also how we see them, and they satisfy several of the other definitions as well.

If atheism is a cult, then religion is one big whopping gigantic cult.
 
Excuse me, but I must flash my Linguistics Moderator badge at this point. A "cult" is characterized by at least some of the following:
  • Religious rites and ceremonies
  • Great veneration of a person, ideal or thing
  • A community bound together by that veneration
  • A community living outside conventional society
  • A charismatic leader
The only definition of "cult" that could apply to atheism is "a sect considered to be false, unorthodox or extremist." I suppose that's how the religionists see us, but that's also how we see them, and they satisfy several of the other definitions as well.

If atheism is a cult, then religion is one big whopping gigantic cult.

Since you have defined cult, just wondering how you would define atheism?
 
Since you have defined cult, just wondering how you would define atheism?

I look forward to Fraggle's definition as well.

For me, it is simply the literal reading of 'a' (without) 'theism' (religion)

And science can not possibly be seen as a religion. For one thing, its founding principles are built on its fallibility, every claim can be proved wrong. There are no deities. There are no moral, ethical, or social lessons forced on the rest of society, just a search for greater or more precise knowledge.

Besides, you can be an atheist and not give one damn about science. It just means you aren't a part of any religion. In fact, I would argue that a lot of people who label themselves "Christians" are actually atheists. I have known dozens over the years who pay lip-service to their childhood creed, but they no longer go to church, they don't pray, they don't even believe in their god or think about him unless they are pressed to, and then it is with a lot of peer pressure that they accede. How can these people be considered theists when the only time they have religion in their lives is when they are avoiding the judgment of those that do?
 
Since you have defined cult, just wondering how you would define atheism?
Well, a typical dictionary definition is:
  • 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God
  • 2. Disbelief in the existence of supreme being(s)
English words are defined by consensus rather than by authority, so as the Linguistics Moderator I have to abide by this. Nonetheless, since you have access to the same online dictionaries, by asking the question you implied that you must want to know what the word means in my own idiolect, or in my own community: Americans with science-oriented university educations who caught the Baby Boom culture and the Generation Gap, but with the perspective of a few extra years of maturation.

By using "god" in the singular and capitalizing it, the first bullet seems to set atheism up specifically as the rejection of Abrahamist monotheism, whereas it's more general than that. And both bullets toss out the word "belief" without qualification, making atheism seem no more rational than theism, just an uncritical acceptance or rejection of what your parents taught you.

Speaking for myself and (I presume without calling for an Elders Council Meeting) my friends and colleagues, our atheism has a rational, scientific substratum.

As I have posted in several places, I state the fundamental definition of science as:
  • The theory that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior, subject to peer review and various other tests.
  • This theory is recursive, and is itself constantly being tested.
Although this definition was once a hypothesis (defined in retrospect, as I've never seen it stated that way even recently, much less at the dawn of the Enlightenment), after 500 years of testing without being falsified, it has achieved the status of a canonical theory: "true beyond a reasonable doubt," to borrow the language of the law (another habit I have explained in other posts).

One of the principles of the scientific method is the Rule of Laplace:
  • Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.
Any assertion that contradicts a canonical theory, by definition, contradicts (in this case) 500 years of assiduous testing and peer review, and therefore automatically qualifies as "extraordinary."

At this point I must digress and contrast theism with deism. Deism is the belief that there are one or more gods who sit and watch the natural universe as their celestial soap opera. They do not meddle in its operation so we have no way to determine whether they do, in fact, exist. Deism is purely philosophical and does not deal with nature, so science has essentially nothing to say about it--and presumably vice versa.

Theism, on the other hand, is the belief that there are one or more gods who periodically interfere with the operation of the natural universe, causing illogical perturbations which can be observed and, therefore, provide evidence of their existence. Theism contradicts the canonical theory that underlies science, by hypothesizing that supernatural forces exist which violate the laws of nature and alter the behavior of the natural universe in illogical and unpredictable ways; in other words, by hypothesizing that the natural universe is not a closed system. (We've previously defined "closed system" pretty carefully: one that is not acted upon by external forces.) By definition then, theism is an extraordinary hypothesis, and the Rule of Laplace demands that its proponents submit their extraordinary evidence.

So: my restated definition of atheism:
  • The application of the Rule of Laplace to the extraordinary hypothesis of the existence of gods who, as they are commonly described, use supernatural forces to perturb the behavior of the natural universe;
  • i.e., the demand for evidence of the actions of these forces or any other evidence of the existence of these gods.
  • Out of curiosity the demand for truly extraordinary evidence will not be enforced; ordinary evidence that is submitted in good faith will be treated with respect.
  • Until such evidence is submitted, is tested, and raises questions which cast reasonable doubt on the underlying canonical theory of science, the hypothesis of the existence of gods is regarded as "false beyond a reasonable doubt."
  • This is not the same as saying the existence of gods is impossible, merely that it's so extremely unlikely that it falls in the open-ended category of "fanciful things on which we cannot waste very much of civilization's finite resources, or we won't get anything else done."
I'm sorry I could not answer your question in a sound bite, but science is like that. It's all in the details.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is the basis for deism :confused:

It's for people who can't let go of their superstition completely, or those who must pay homage to religion thanks to societal pressures.

That's why it was the religion of the enlightenment. Think of the abandonment of superstition as potty-training. Deism is pull-ups!
 
It's for people who can't let go of their superstition completely, or those who must pay homage to religion thanks to societal pressures.

That's why it was the religion of the enlightenment. Think of the abandonment of superstition as potty-training. Deism is pull-ups!

Lol :D
So in other words, none ;)
 
What exactly is the basis for deism?
Deism allows people to postulate supernatural explanations for some of our Deep Questions like "What is the nature of time," "Where did the universe come from," or "Why is pi an irrational number?" Although in the deistic model of reality the gods are scrupulous about not messing around with the universe, they might have been the ones that created it.

That's the Cosmic Watchmaker hypothesis: They built it, wound it up, then sat back to watch it run. This explains why there is so much order in the universe: it's a well crafted machine. Of course the scientific explanation is that since we evolved in this universe we would have to have the perceptual ability to make sense out of it or we would not be well suited for survival, and therefore it simply looks orderly because we have nothing to compare it to.

Unfortunately the watchmaker model invokes the fallacy of recursion: Since the universe by definition is "everything that exists," the gods are part of it and the model doesn't answer the question of where they came from.

BTW this is not an essential component of deism, but it's one that has been mentioned in the discussions I've read of deism. If you're interested you can find out more. I've never met a deist to interview.
 
Deism allows people to postulate supernatural explanations for some of our Deep Questions like "What is the nature of time," "Where did the universe come from," or "Why is pi an irrational number?" Although in the deistic model of reality the gods are scrupulous about not messing around with the universe, they might have been the ones that created it.

That's the Cosmic Watchmaker hypothesis: They built it, wound it up, then sat back to watch it run. This explains why there is so much order in the universe: it's a well crafted machine. Of course the scientific explanation is that since we evolved in this universe we would have to have the perceptual ability to make sense out of it or we would not be well suited for survival, and therefore it simply looks orderly because we have nothing to compare it to.
But what is the point of honoring these deities if they aren't going to interfere ?

Unfortunately the watchmaker model invokes the fallacy of recursion: Since the universe by definition is "everything that exists," the gods are part of it and the model doesn't answer the question of where they came from.
I think the biggest mystery of all is why some people can't see this ;)

BTW this is not an essential component of deism, but it's one that has been mentioned in the discussions I've read of deism. If you're interested you can find out more. I've never met a deist to interview.
I seem to recall a member here calling him/herself a deist. I forgot who it was though, sorry.
 
A few weeks ago Bill Maher was on the Daily Show pitching his film Religulous. Jon Steward took him to be an atheist to which he responded (with some paraphrasing), "I'm not an atheist. I don't like atheism. It's the mirror image of the certitude of religion." To an extremely skeptical agnostic like myself this seemed quite reasonable. Is there enough empirical evidence for atheism? I don't for a minute equate the "certitude" of atheism with that of the currently accepted religions but can't help thinking that atheists are a little too smug given the current state of scientific knowledge. Am I missing something? Do we know enough about the past, current, future state of the universe (amongst other things?) to absolutely exclude the possibility of some form of deity?

As a colleage of mine would say. Atheism isn't just the rejection of a God or Gods, in some cases there are those that chose to have no opinion on the issue at all . An absense of belief.

But is atheism unscientific. No, of course not. It's not scientific either. I have gathered enough information to conclude that there is a creator but at the same token others will see that same information differently or reject that information out of hand.

It's a choice and that is the only thing that is certain. We don't know more than do know. Choice is how we level the field.
 
It's a choice and that is the only thing that is certain. We don't know more than do know. Choice is how we level the field.

I disagree. If you are willing to state specific things about your god, science can disprove it. If you are not willing to state specific things about your god, you believe in nothing.

Gods live in the gaps, and the gaps in human understanding that are left are paper-thin. This is why they are becoming ephemeral wisps of imaginative gossamer. They dare not stick their heads out into the discussion for fear of having their noggins lopped off like the Greek, Roman, and Norse gods of old.

Even so, with the chicken-shit gods we are presented with now, they still rest on a paradox. They are infinitely old and they created the universe. Since this combination is impossible, even for the all-powerful, we are assured that no such higher power exists.
 
I disagree. If you are willing to state specific things about your god, science can disprove it.
My God is a million feet tall, has blue and red hair, 8 noses, and exists solely in a 4th spacial dimension. He chose 2000 years ago to not interact with the 3 dimensions in which we live in any way; not even through observation.

There is, by the power of his active avoidance, no evidence of his existence detectable within the confines of our 3 dimensional universe.
 
My God is a million feet tall, has blue and red hair, 8 noses, and exists solely in a 4th spacial dimension. He chose 2000 years ago to not interact with the 3 dimensions in which we live in any way; not even through observation.

There is, by the power of his active avoidance, no evidence of his existence detectable within the confines of our 3 dimensional universe.

Since he exists in the 4th spatial dimension, do you think we will ever have the tools to probe this naturally occurring dimension of our universe? Surely we can design something in the future?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top