Atheism vs Science

[cho_pilo]

Not really. No scientist will accept a totally unfounded hypothesis, even provisonally. There must be some acceptable and supporting evidence even at the beginning. Now, what is the level of sufficiently supporting evidence, that can be debated. A New Ager can propose a hypothesis for the curative powers of pyramidal structures, similarly to the Christians who propose that prayers have curative powers, but a scientist will ask for supporting data before he will entertain either hypothesis. When no supporting data is forthcoming, the hypothesis is discarded.

It is not different at all. The suggested evidence for God’s existence is insufficient in the eyes of the atheists.

Not true, though it is repeated ad nauseam. Absence of proof is not a proof of abswence, that is true. But the absence of evidence is very much an evidence of absence.

The *sine qua non *of science is cause and effect. Of assumptions and inferences based on what cannot be disproved. This is the opposite of atheism which begins with the assumption that there is nothing to prove or disprove. If atheists applied the same reasoning to life as they do to theology their concept formation would mirror that of the Piraha.

 

[Spock]

The *sine qua non *of science is cause and effect. Of assumptions and inferences based on what cannot be disproved.

There are quite a few bacis assumptions which we accept without proof. They are accepted, because they are basic, and cannot be reduced unto anything “more basic”. Some of these are that “universe exists” outside of us. Or that the universe exhibits order. But they do not come a-priori from some armchair contemplation, they come from the result of zillions of observations.

The concept of “cause and effect” is distilled from observations. However, that does not mean that the principle of cause and effect has been proven to be universal. Modern physics shown events where the cause and effect relationship does not seem to hold.

Of course, that does not mean anything special. Atheists hold that there is an existential primary, something that does not need explanation, something that is basic. And that, of course, is the universe itself.

This is the opposite of atheism which begins with the assumption that there is nothing to prove or disprove.

Since atheism is a banned subject for the time being, I will leave you to your ignorance about it. I suggest you read the book Atheism: A Case against God if you are interested in the subject.

 

[Spock]

@Spock: Please don’t give yourself a fourth heart attack over this stuff. If you want to test your patience just do some crossword puzzles or yoga or something.

Thank you. I will not get another heart attack, if I can avoid it.

 

[cho_pilo]

Thank you. I will not get another heart attack, if I can avoid it.

Sorry, we don’t want you get heart attack.

 

[Spock]

For example, a cold murder case… Some cold murder cases have no evidence to investigate to close the case. The only thing they know is that someone got killed.

If there is no evidence (maybe it was destroyed, as you say), then the only thing you know is that someone is missing. You need some evidence (direct or indirect) to make the leap from “someone is missing” to “someone is killed”. Isn’t that obvious?

 

[Spock]

Sorry, we don’t want you get heart attack.

I am very sure about that. And I am grateful for your good wishes.

 

[levinas12]

Not true, though it is repeated ad nauseam. Absence of proof is not a proof of abswence, that is true. But the absence of evidence is very much an evidence of absence.

There may be an interesting philosophical distinction here … “evidence” without “proof”. Consider mathematics. I apologize for creating a digression but I respect your penchant for logic. Given Godel’s chastisement of Hilbert … that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved through logical procedures from a prescribed set of axioms … what is the meaning of “evidence” in mathematics without “proof” through Hilbertian (logicist) procedures … and, generalizing, what is “evidence” without “proof” in physics … let’s say, “evidence” for string theory or multiverse … and what is “evidence” in literary criticism (e.g., correct or at least “interesting” interpretation of a poem) … or “evidence” in art theory (e.g., the meaning of a painting) … or “evidence” in philosophy …

 

[prstoessel]

Hi, cho pilo,

Neat thread.

I never knew until now that atheists and science had any disagreement.

Are you sure we don’t have fundamental Christians and atheists both bashing science?

I would say that atheism rejects valid evidence as false.
A good scientist looks at all the evidence.
And a zealous scientist goes looking for evidence.

God loves you,
Don

Great post. Good humor is always rooted in truth.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

But the absence of evidence is very much an evidence of absence.

Ah, Spock, up to your old tricks?

When Democritus argued the existence of atoms, particles so small they could not be seen, was he wrong because he had no evidence? Didn’t the atoms exist even though there was no evidence possible for Democritus to make his case?

So it’s not true; the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean the evidence of absence.

 

[levinas12]

There may be an interesting philosophical distinction here … “evidence” without “proof”. Consider mathematics. I apologize for creating a digression but I respect your penchant for logic. Given Godel’s chastisement of Hilbert … that there are true mathematical statements that cannot be proved through logical procedures from a prescribed set of axioms … what is the meaning of “evidence” in mathematics without “proof” through Hilbertian (logicist) procedures … and, generalizing, what is “evidence” without “proof” in physics … let’s say, “evidence” for string theory or multiverse … and what is “evidence” in literary criticism (e.g., correct or at least “interesting” interpretation of a poem) … or “evidence” in art theory (e.g., the meaning of a painting) … or “evidence” in philosophy …

Or “evidence” of things manifested in everyday perception … probably there are as many varieties of “evidence” as there are human activities of “disclosure” … what do they all have in common … what would later Wittgenstein say … he would say, there are a lot of different “games” … are there “evidences” not based on scientific experiment and mathematical formulation … certainly, logical “evidence” fall outside such a protocol … hermeneutics too … and many other “evidences” … with their own “criteria” … like the “evidence” of a joke (how do you prove the point of a joke) …

 

[levinas12]

Or “evidence” of things manifested in everyday perception … probably there are as many varieties of “evidence” as there are human activities of “disclosure” … what do they all have in common … what would later Wittgenstein say … he would say, there are a lot of different “games” … are there “evidences” not based on scientific experiment and mathematical formulation … certainly, logical “evidence” falls outside such a protocol … hermeneutics too … and many other “evidences” … with their own “criteria” … like the “evidence” of a joke (how do you prove the point of a joke) …

To clarify: logical “evidence” is not based on the results of scientific experiments which are then formulated into mathematical equations that can be tested again and again … mathematics itself falls outside this protocol … the question is whether mathematics is analytic a priori or synthetic a priori … “evidence” here is itself unclear; ironically where you would expect it to be the clearest … so, to bring this longwinded posting to a merciful conclusion , it is a philosophical question as to what would constitute evidence … and I don’t think this thread has fully explored this … the issue became a critical one with a double crisis: first, in mathematics (at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century) and second, in physics (in the 20th century from beginning to end) …just a side note: one result of all the turmoil about evidence was Husserlian phenomenology … the early version of which tried to find the fundamentum inconcussum, that which is certain … then things began to unravel … and we ended up with Derrida …

 

[levinas12]

To clarify: logical “evidence” is not based on the results of scientific experiments which are then formulated into mathematical equations that can be tested again and again … .

Correction: I may have reversed the sequence for some protocols … sometimes mathematical equations are first, then tested with scientific experiments … sometimes, it’s the other way around …but it should nonetheless be clear that logical “evidence” falls outside the methodology of the hard sciences (e.g., physics) …

 

[levinas12]

(for background, please see my other postings to this thread)

So evidence in logic is different than evidence in mathematics … and evidence in mathematics is different than evidence in physics … and evidence in physics is different than evidence in hermeneutics … now is there a type of evidence that pertains to the “disclosure” of God … how do we, especially in our everyday activities, find out about God… I’m not talking about science, or any other academic exercise … including philosophy … but “lived experience” (or,as the soaps put it, “the stuff of our lives”) … this is not to exclude science, philosophy, … but I’m trying to get to the experience that is always and already… the original “evidence”

 

[levinas12]

And the original evidence: the human face … “a visitation and a transcendence” … this is the primordial disclosure of God in everyday experience … and the face is public … the person is public … we are not talking about a private mystical solitude …

And I’m not reducing the divine to the human … think of Martin Buber …
the human “I-Thou” experience leads to God …

 

[levinas12]

(or,as the soaps put it, “the stuff of our lives”)

ok … “days of our lives”

 

[donsnow]

(for background, please see my other postings to this thread)

So evidence in logic is different than evidence in mathematics … and evidence in mathematics is different than evidence in physics … and evidence in physics is different than evidence in hermeneutics … now is there a type of evidence that pertains to the “disclosure” of God … how do we, especially in our everyday activities, find out about God… I’m not talking about science, or any other academic exercise … including philosophy … but “lived experience” (or,as the soaps put it, “the stuff of our lives”) … this is not to exclude science, philosophy, … but I’m trying to get to the experience that is always and already… the original “evidence”

Hi, levinas12,

If I understand your question in this particular post, I would answer that people need to rely on either their own experience with God (part of what I rely on), or accept anecdotal evidence from other people’s experience (s) with God in our times.

God loves you,
Don

 

[levinas12]

If I understand your question in this particular post, I would answer that people need to rely on either their own experience with God (part of what I rely on), or accept anecdotal evidence from other people’s experience (s) with God in our times./QUOTE]

I agree. Every Catholic should reflect about why they believe. As rational agents, we are responsible, or accountable, for our beliefs. Religious belief is no exception. And dialogue with atheists or agnostics is very helpful in this regard.

We must have a basis for our faith. Even Kierkegaard has his reasons (his leap into the absurd is not really a blind leap).

 

[donsnow]

donsnow;7687120:

If I understand your question in this particular post, I would answer that people need to rely on either their own experience with God (part of what I rely on), or accept anecdotal evidence from other people’s experience (s) with God in our times./QUOTE]

I agree. Every Catholic should reflect about why they believe. As rational agents, we are responsible, or accountable, for our beliefs. Religious belief is no exception. And dialogue with atheists or agnostics is very helpful in this regard.

We must have a basis for our faith. Even Kierkegaard has his reasons (his leap into the absurd is not really a blind leap).

Hi, levinas12,

That’s true. I’m a convert, in 1968, to the Roman Catholic Church. What I like about our church, is we have fortified Holy Scriptures with reason, the Magesterium and Tradition, to add to our own personal experiences with God.

I do my best to forbid any debater from stripping those from my faith.

God loves you,
Don