Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
03-18-2017, 09:43 PM
Post: #1
Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
In so far as I am aware, one of the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry is that in the face of inconclusive evidence, one must always retain an open mind, minimally flexible enough to admit that no conclusive evidence yet exists.

Regarding the existence, or non-existence of God (a prime motivator), I am unaware of any conclusive evidence for or against "it's" existence. (We have all heard arguments about unicorns, leprechauns, and teapots, but such folkloric items all differ markedly from the role of a would-be prime motivator.) Both Einstein and Darwin were willing to admit that they knew of no conclusive evidence for or against such a thing.

I do not attempt to defend anyone who would argue creationism, or any other supposedly "scientific proof" for the existence of a god, but neither do I feel obligated to defend any supposed scientist who would argue that science has now effectively disproven the likely existence of a god.

To me, such debates seem to be no more than two cave men attempting to argue about the very best means of getting from point A to point B, when neither one of them yet even has a clue about whatever on earth a "wheel" might be!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-18-2017, 10:06 PM
Post: #2
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
(03-18-2017 09:43 PM)scotwperry Wrote:  In so far as I am aware, one of the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry is that in the face of inconclusive evidence, one must always retain an open mind, minimally flexible enough to admit that no conclusive evidence yet exists.

Regarding the existence, or non-existence of God (a prime motivator), I am unaware of any conclusive evidence for or against "it's" existence. (We have all heard arguments about unicorns, leprechauns, and teapots, but such folkloric items all differ markedly from the role of a would-be prime motivator.) Both Einstein and Darwin were willing to admit that they knew of no conclusive evidence for or against such a thing.

I do not attempt to defend anyone who would argue creationism, or any other supposedly "scientific proof" for the existence of a god, but neither do I feel obligated to defend any supposed scientist who would argue that science has now effectively disproven the likely existence of a god.

To me, such debates seem to be no more than two cave men attempting to argue about the very best means of getting from point A to point B, when neither one of them yet even has a clue about whatever on earth a "wheel" might be!

One large issue in these discussions is understanding what is meant by 'god'. Often the theist means 'the God of my holy book' and wants to ignore the gap between what a reason for the existence of the universe would be like and that definition. Often the atheist also means 'the God of some holy book' and is fully aware of that aforementioned gap, considering it unbridgeable.

It seems to me that if the theist wishes to change the mind of an atheist, it is incumbent on the theist to show that this gap can be bridged, that the God depicted in some holy book can reasonably be connected with the reason the universe exists. It should be kept in mind that Aquinas was of the opinion that it could not be done, that it had to be accepted on faith. And Aquinas imagined the universe as a lot smaller and simpler than we know today.

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2017, 12:01 AM
Post: #3
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
sigh, atheism is a-theism. or non-theism.

its not a statement of belief its a statement of lack of belief, it makes NO assumptions or claims.

so no its not at all unscientific, it is the very skepticism you speak of.

'agnostics' (a pointless term in my opinion) is merely a form of atheism, ie the most common form of atheism, some atheists claim to be gnostic atheists, as in, they believe they know there is no god, but they simply misunderstand how proof and knowledge work.

~~~

when we enter a discussion on matters of discordance, we should search for truth not victory, In this manner we always win, there are no losers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2017, 04:05 AM
Post: #4
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
(03-19-2017 12:01 AM)PeterPants Wrote:  sigh, atheism is a-theism. or non-theism.

its not a statement of belief its a statement of lack of belief, it makes NO assumptions or claims.

so no its not at all unscientific, it is the very skepticism you speak of.

'agnostics' (a pointless term in my opinion) is merely a form of atheism, ie the most common form of atheism, some atheists claim to be gnostic atheists, as in, they believe they know there is no god, but they simply misunderstand how proof and knowledge work.
Yes, there is the eternal battle of semantics that can be chosen for. But then there is a simple Truth, for which semantics were invented, in the vain hope of crystalizing that which must forever remain fluid. Personally, I will make the claim, "I do not know," and whether that makes me an agnostic, an atheist, or a theist, I do not know.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2017, 04:17 AM
Post: #5
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
(03-18-2017 09:43 PM)scotwperry Wrote:  In so far as I am aware, one of the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry is that in the face of inconclusive evidence, one must always retain an open mind, minimally flexible enough to admit that no conclusive evidence yet exists.

Regarding the existence, or non-existence of God (a prime motivator), I am unaware of any conclusive evidence for or against "it's" existence. (We have all heard arguments about unicorns, leprechauns, and teapots, but such folkloric items all differ markedly from the role of a would-be prime motivator.) Both Einstein and Darwin were willing to admit that they knew of no conclusive evidence for or against such a thing.

I do not attempt to defend anyone who would argue creationism, or any other supposedly "scientific proof" for the existence of a god, but neither do I feel obligated to defend any supposed scientist who would argue that science has now effectively disproven the likely existence of a god.

To me, such debates seem to be no more than two cave men attempting to argue about the very best means of getting from point A to point B, when neither one of them yet even has a clue about whatever on earth a "wheel" might be!

Anything related to beliefs in gods, or the lack thereof, is fundamentally outside the field of science. The fact that the term "belief" is in that equation disqualifies it as something that can be investigated using science.

Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2017, 04:26 AM
Post: #6
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
@Scotwperry
indeed semantics don't matter, the ideas themselves matter. my point was that if your arguing against 'hard atheism' hen your arguing against a tiny tiny fraction of people, people who have strange ideas about proof.

~~~

when we enter a discussion on matters of discordance, we should search for truth not victory, In this manner we always win, there are no losers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-19-2017, 05:14 PM
Post: #7
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
(03-18-2017 09:43 PM)scotwperry Wrote:  Both Einstein and Darwin were willing to admit that they knew of no conclusive evidence for or against such a thing.

Einstein described himself as a Spinoza style pantheist. Spinoza pretty much invented the modern form of pantheism, the position that God is identical with what is and all substance is one unity. Spinoza, and Einstein, espoused monism, that the mind is not something separate from the body. Einstein was not an agnostic. But his view of God was not compatible with typical western religions.

Darwin described himself as an agnostic, but also insisted that there was no problem with a theist accepting evolution. Many followers of western religions accept evolution. Some do not. However Darwin's agnosticism cannot be used to portray him as being unsure of evolution because there might be a God.

And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
Dylan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-20-2017, 02:13 AM (This post was last modified: 03-20-2017 02:19 AM by scotwperry.)
Post: #8
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
(03-18-2017 10:06 PM)Imprecise Interrupt Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 09:43 PM)scotwperry Wrote:  In so far as I am aware, one of the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry is that in the face of inconclusive evidence, one must always retain an open mind, minimally flexible enough to admit that no conclusive evidence yet exists.

Regarding the existence, or non-existence of God (a prime motivator), I am unaware of any conclusive evidence for or against "it's" existence. (We have all heard arguments about unicorns, leprechauns, and teapots, but such folkloric items all differ markedly from the role of a would-be prime motivator.) Both Einstein and Darwin were willing to admit that they knew of no conclusive evidence for or against such a thing.

I do not attempt to defend anyone who would argue creationism, or any other supposedly "scientific proof" for the existence of a god, but neither do I feel obligated to defend any supposed scientist who would argue that science has now effectively disproven the likely existence of a god.

To me, such debates seem to be no more than two cave men attempting to argue about the very best means of getting from point A to point B, when neither one of them yet even has a clue about whatever on earth a "wheel" might be!

One large issue in these discussions is understanding what is meant by 'god'. Often the theist means 'the God of my holy book' and wants to ignore the gap between what a reason for the existence of the universe would be like and that definition. Often the atheist also means 'the God of some holy book' and is fully aware of that aforementioned gap, considering it unbridgeable.

It seems to me that if the theist wishes to change the mind of an atheist, it is incumbent on the theist to show that this gap can be bridged, that the God depicted in some holy book can reasonably be connected with the reason the universe exists. It should be kept in mind that Aquinas was of the opinion that it could not be done, that it had to be accepted on faith. And Aquinas imagined the universe as a lot smaller and simpler than we know today.

Yes, that would certainly apply for the theist whose theism might be built on some given "holy book." For the theist whose theism might be built on a simple belief/ faith in some unknowable but real "higher power," that might exist entirely independent of any given holy books, it would only be required that sufficient evidence of the likelihood of the existence of a "higher power" might be provided, no?


(03-19-2017 04:17 AM)Herminator Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 09:43 PM)scotwperry Wrote:  In so far as I am aware, one of the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry is that in the face of inconclusive evidence, one must always retain an open mind, minimally flexible enough to admit that no conclusive evidence yet exists.

Regarding the existence, or non-existence of God (a prime motivator), I am unaware of any conclusive evidence for or against "it's" existence. (We have all heard arguments about unicorns, leprechauns, and teapots, but such folkloric items all differ markedly from the role of a would-be prime motivator.) Both Einstein and Darwin were willing to admit that they knew of no conclusive evidence for or against such a thing.

I do not attempt to defend anyone who would argue creationism, or any other supposedly "scientific proof" for the existence of a god, but neither do I feel obligated to defend any supposed scientist who would argue that science has now effectively disproven the likely existence of a god.

To me, such debates seem to be no more than two cave men attempting to argue about the very best means of getting from point A to point B, when neither one of them yet even has a clue about whatever on earth a "wheel" might be!

Anything related to beliefs in gods, or the lack thereof, is fundamentally outside the field of science. The fact that the term "belief" is in that equation disqualifies it as something that can be investigated using science.

Yes, but unfortunately both theists and atheists sometimes get their "beliefs" and what passes as "science" mixed up, thus we see scientists claiming to have proven or disproven things that no equation can touch, while theists claim to have proven or disproven evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-20-2017, 02:25 AM
Post: #9
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
Its debatable whether anything can be completely proven outside of pure mathematics. but evolution is about as evident as anything, its probably the most tested and most verified theory we have.

indeed many scientists claim to have proven things, but thats the strength of science, it does not rely on what any particular scientist says, religion however, faith etc, is entirely based on wishful thinking or delusion, there is no evidence for anything magical, miracles, prayer etc, and pelanty of evidence explaining the perceived phenomena in much more satisfactory and comprehensible ways.

~~~

when we enter a discussion on matters of discordance, we should search for truth not victory, In this manner we always win, there are no losers.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-20-2017, 02:32 AM
Post: #10
RE: Aren't Both Atheism, and Theism Unscientific?
(03-20-2017 02:25 AM)PeterPants Wrote:  Its debatable whether anything can be completely proven outside of pure mathematics. but evolution is about as evident as anything, its probably the most tested and most verified theory we have.

indeed many scientists claim to have proven things, but thats the strength of science, it does not rely on what any particular scientist says, religion however, faith etc, is entirely based on wishful thinking or delusion, there is no evidence for anything magical, miracles, prayer etc, and pelanty of evidence explaining the perceived phenomena in much more satisfactory and comprehensible ways.

Religions based on beliefs in the formulas of holy books are certainly often quite limited. A belief in the moral teachings of philosophers, of which some holy books sometimes can give us a glimmer, can sometimes be of far greater value than mere delusions.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Is theism a choice? Spiny Norman 66 3,636 11-26-2015 06:59 AM
Last Post: GuardianWitch
  Discussion about Theism/the supernatural Herminator 82 5,466 08-30-2014 07:33 AM
Last Post: Satyros
  If theism did not exist, what would take its place? rocketboy9000 68 6,670 07-09-2014 03:11 PM
Last Post: shiverleaf15
  Why do people persist in believing things that aren't true? tantilla oolitica 15 1,023 05-22-2014 09:27 AM
Last Post: Satyros
  Evidences for Theism/the supernatural shiverleaf15 6 1,212 03-03-2014 01:13 PM
Last Post: shiverleaf15
  Theism shiverleaf15 41 2,594 02-24-2014 11:45 PM
Last Post: Satyros



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)