Atheism: All Around Us

[psalm90]

I’m reading Atheist Humanism by Jesuit Henri De Lubac, first copyrighted in 1950, as far as I can tell.

I ordered it from Amazon and what I got was a paperback copy that was published in 1963. Somebody tried reading it, as evidenced by some yellow highlighting in it. The highlighting stops at around page 8. I suspect that is so and that the book is such good condition, because nobody wants to read it. I’m up to around page 70 – which is in the chapter on Auguste Comte. Comte had an idea in 1822, overnight, about religion as simply being the earliest stage of the knowledge of mankind.

Reading this book is like holding my breath under water. I’m wondering when it will end.

But, I’m up to the part where Comte says (1822) that he thinks the goal of the evolution of knowledge is that no man will have a thought in himself about God. But, Friedrich Nietzche is the most profound exponent of atheism and the most influential, according to LuBac.

Comte freely admits that the evolution of knowledge replaces the God of Catholicism (in particular) with the god of man – man becomes god to himself. (Well, that’s what I thought the sin of Adam and Eve was, that was the temptation of satan in the garden, “to become like god”).

This brings us to today. Somebody sent me a copy of the California AAA travel book for Jan-Feb 2017 and it has a one-page story about Neil deGrasse Tyson - a very smart and popular astronomer.

Well, if you needed it, here’s your daily dose of atheism from NDGT (page 40): “The problems that face us have science as their solution, even if science caused the problem to begin with.” See? No god in there.

That’s what Comte was saying almost 200 years ago, that physics and science in general is the third stage of knowledge – the new religion of science. Lu Bac says that Comte wanted to be declared the first high priest of this new religion.

Comte says that there’s a fourth stage in the evolution of knowledge, but I don’t remember what he called it. I’m having trouble backtracking to it, too.

 

[psalm90]

(continuing) I haven’t finished reading the book for Lubac’s ending to all this, but already I disagree with Comte, and perhaps what I say may help the cause of evangelization:

I disagree that metaphysics replaces religion, and that science replaces metaphysics.

That’s merely a hypothesis of Comte, which he has vainly taken as a law of science (of course).

Science fails us, when we see a rocket blow up or when a bridge collapses or when we see the ads on TV for class action suits against drug makers. Science helps us, as a servant, but it is not perfect. we need something MORE than science to guide science and to control it from running amok. In all cases, that is religion and morality.

And, just like when we see scientists make bad decisions about O-rings that results in the space shuttle rocket blowing up, there are people in religion who make bad decisions – maybe all the more, because religion is so big, and there’s so much that can go wrong. – That’s why we’re oriented to orthodoxy over and over. Men are not gods in either context.

Not only is atheism all around us, it lies to us.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

(continuing) I haven’t finished reading the book for Lubac’s ending to all this, but already I disagree with Comte, and perhaps what I say may help the cause of evangelization:

I disagree that metaphysics replaces religion, and that science replaces metaphysics.

That’s merely a hypothesis of Comte, which he has vainly taken as a law of science (of course).

Science fails us, when we see a rocket blow up or when a bridge collapses or when we see the ads on TV for class action suits against drug makers. Science helps us, as a servant, but it is not perfect. we need something MORE than science to guide science and to control it from running amok. In all cases, that is religion and morality.

And, just like when we see scientists make bad decisions about O-rings that results in the space shuttle rocket blowing up, there are people in religion who make bad decisions – maybe all the more, because religion is so big, and there’s so much that can go wrong. – That’s why we’re oriented to orthodoxy over and over. Men are not gods in either context.

Not only is atheism all around us, it lies to us.

The engineers were well aware of the O-rings capacities for contraction under cold temperatures. Thiokol managers and NASA officials made the call to launch despite protests from Thiokol and NASA engineers.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Science might answer “how” something happens.
Religion might answer “why” something happens.
Morality might answer “should we let/make” something happen.

Science already gave us the methods to wipe out 90% of the world population. Morality (And self interest) says we sold not let/make that happen.

 

[NM505StKate]

Science is a religion? Science is a method not a belief system.

 

[edwest2]

Science is a religion? Science is a method not a belief system.

For some, it is. Science, not God/gods has the answers. But the scientific method has its self-defined limits. Supposedly, it can’t study the supernatural or miracles, but doctors, scientists and technical experts are called in all the time by the Church to examine claims for “impossible” events. The experts provide data and their best answer.

Before the scientific method, and even after, trial and error is part of the methodology. With the firm belief, by some, that science will solve all problems.

Ed

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

For some, it is. Science, not God/gods has the answers. But the scientific method has its self-defined limits. Supposedly, it can’t study the supernatural or miracles, but doctors, scientists and technical experts are called in all the time by the Church to examine claims for “impossible” events. The experts provide data and their best answer.

Before the scientific method, and even after, trial and error is part of the methodology. With the firm belief, by some, that science will solve all problems.

Ed

I can’t speak for all atheists, but I would say the feeling isn’t that science will solve all problems but that if a problem can be solved science is far more likely than religion. Some things we may never find the answer to.

There are great many things that were thought to be supernatural that science later demonstrated as natural and understandable. We don’t have an example of something that was thought to be natural and later shown to be supernatural.

We know birth defects aren’t curses. We know that epileptic seizures aren’t demonic possessions. Sadly there and non-Catholic Christians today who still blame disasters on God’s wrath. In short an atheist’s position that something is not caused by supernatural reasons is based on the track record of both being able to explain something and disprove in those cases any such non-natural causes.

I’m sure there are a few atheists that say all will be explained by science, I’ve just never encountered one.

 

[Russell_SA]

I can’t speak for all atheists, but I would say the feeling isn’t that science will solve all problems but that if a problem can be solved science is far more likely than religion. Some things we may never find the answer to.

There are great many things that were thought to be supernatural that science later demonstrated as natural and understandable. We don’t have an example of something that was thought to be natural and later shown to be supernatural.

We know birth defects aren’t curses. We know that epileptic seizures aren’t demonic possessions. Sadly there and non-Catholic Christians today who still blame disasters on God’s wrath. In short an atheist’s position that something is not caused by supernatural reasons is based on the track record of both being able to explain something and disprove in those cases any such non-natural causes.

I’m sure there are a few atheists that say all will be explained by science, I’ve just never encountered one.

As an atheist, atheism is the response to a single question. Have you been convinced that the supernatural exists? Not that you know the supernatural does not exist, only that you’ve yet to be convinced on that question that supernatural exists. Once the level of evidence is reached and the understanding of that evidence is reached, then someone would change their position on this question. What ever thought process you used to come to this preliminary conclusion is what you use to analyze reality through. Then you apply your world view to come to an application about the conclusions you’ve reached.

So as a philosophical naturalist, I use the reference point of reality to ground my application of logical conclusions because no mater how logically correct I believe an idea to be, I can still be logically correct but factually wrong because of how woefully ignorant of reality I am. A1=A2 only if all I know about A1 is 4 things and A2 is the same 4 things. But then after studying A1 some more, with better instruments and new knowledge, I learn that A1 has 6 things, I have to readjust my understanding of reality. See…originally logically correct, but factually wrong. I do not go into absolute knowledge about reality as my bar because I can only react to the reality I interact with. There could be a meteor hurtling to the earth, but since I have no way of knowing this at the moment, I do not live my life as if it is actually there. Also if all I can tell about something is the inference of it through logical conclusions about its affect on reality, then all I am able to do is describe that process and leave it as an idea to discuss, but not something to live my life by that that object is actually there until I can falsify my hypothesis about it. That’s where you get justified belief about an idea that is only detectable through an indirect way. For example, gravity waves. Einstein calculated that they should be a part of reality, but we were not justified in teaching that they are part of reality only through mathematical logical conclusions. We had to run the test last year. Not until we ran the falsifiable test last year and actually detected the gravity waves did we feel justified in teaching that they are actually part of reality. Logical conclusions alone, is not enough to justify changing our paradigm about reality for a philosophical naturalist. Logical conclusions about the supernatural are not enough to conclude that it is there until you can run the tests to see if its there or not or manifesting in reality in some detectable way. The scientific process is the best philosophical method we all have come up with for determining if something happened in reality or not. It’s self correcting and helps remove conformation bias. Its better to learn what reality actually is than what we wish it was like.

 

[SuperLuigi]

As an atheist, atheism is the response to a single question. Have you been convinced that the supernatural exists? Not that you know the supernatural does not exist, only that you’ve yet to be convinced on that question that supernatural exists. Once the level of evidence is reached and the understanding of that evidence is reached, then someone would change their position on this question. What ever thought process you used to come to this preliminary conclusion is what you use to analyze reality through. Then you apply your world view to come to an application about the conclusions you’ve reached.

So as a philosophical naturalist, I use the reference point of reality to ground my application of logical conclusions because no mater how logically correct I believe an idea to be, I can still be logically correct but factually wrong because of how woefully ignorant of reality I am. A1=A2 only if all I know about A1 is 4 things and A2 is the same 4 things. But then after studying A1 some more, with better instruments and new knowledge, I learn that A1 has 6 things, I have to readjust my understanding of reality. See…originally logically correct, but factually wrong. I do not go into absolute knowledge about reality as my bar because I can only react to the reality I interact with. There could be a meteor hurtling to the earth, but since I have no way of knowing this at the moment, I do not live my life as if it is actually there. Also if all I can tell about something is the inference of it through logical conclusions about its affect on reality, then all I am able to do is describe that process and leave it as an idea to discuss, but not something to live my life by that that object is actually there until I can falsify my hypothesis about it. That’s where you get justified belief about an idea that is only detectable through an indirect way. For example, gravity waves. Einstein calculated that they should be a part of reality, but we were not justified in teaching that they are part of reality only through mathematical logical conclusions. We had to run the test last year. Not until we ran the falsifiable test last year and actually detected the gravity waves did we feel justified in teaching that they are actually part of reality. Logical conclusions alone, is not enough to justify changing our paradigm about reality for a philosophical naturalist. Logical conclusions about the supernatural are not enough to conclude that it is there until you can run the tests to see if its there or not or manifesting in reality in some detectable way. The scientific process is the best philosophical method we all have come up with for determining if something happened in reality or not. It’s self correcting and helps remove conformation bias. Its better to learn what reality actually is than what we wish it was like.

The biggest issue I have is that many atheists have been too cavalier about throwing logic to the wind when it comes to gender, marriage and climate change.

It seems to me if they are going to use logic to justify their decisions, they need to consider it in every situation.

There’s nothing more annoying than a lack of consistency or cherry-picking.

 

[SuperLuigi]

For some, it is. Science, not God/gods has the answers. But the scientific method has its self-defined limits. Supposedly, it can’t study the supernatural or miracles, but doctors, scientists and technical experts are called in all the time by the Church to examine claims for “impossible” events. The experts provide data and their best answer.

Before the scientific method, and even after, trial and error is part of the methodology. With the firm belief, by some, that science will solve all problems.

Ed

There will always be uncertainty in science.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Faith is about more than metaphysics.

A minority of us are fortunate to live under frreedom of conscience and of relationship.

In Spain for instance ever since 1492 they are confused whether they are supposed to be Christians pretending to be Muslims or Muslims pretending to be Christians (Moros or Moriscos, which many high-demand movements copy).

Not only Nietzsche but Kierkegaard felt some of the staler offshoots of the Lutheran version of this problem.