Does Science Support Atheism?

[Charlemagne_II]

I don’t. I can’t think of a way to falsify such a hypothesis. If it’s not falsifiable, even in priniciple, there’s little point in worrying about it’s truth or falsehood. There’s no way to tell. If that weren’t the case, how would you know? No matter what, you could always suppose some Designed was pulling strings from somewhere higher up the abstraction chain. And no one could possibly show you anything that works against that idea, except for it being superfluous, unneeded.

The principle of falsifiability was made popular by Antony Flew, who now believes in a Deist God and in his book There is a God shows why he has evolved toward the idea of God in spite of his earlier insistence upon falsifiability.

secularhumanism.org/library/exclusive/young_01-05.htm

How do you know scientifically as a proven fact (as opposed to a lofty speculation) that the great human drama has no divine Playwright and Director in the wings?
I don’t, and that question is so overloaded with epistemic problems, it’s difficult to say anything more than that. You’re just asking for proof for a universal negative, which either means you’re taking me for a fool, or you haven’t thought through your question.

I’m asking (in the thread’s title, which I presume is why you are here) for scientific proof that supports atheism. So far you have delicately provided none whatsoever. Thank you for at least admitting that such proof is not forthcoming

Unlike theology, the mark of a high quality scientic idea is broad exposure to being clearly identifed as mistaken if it is indeed mistaken.

This statement is either absurd or you have left out some words you intended to include. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. In future please proofread your posts more carefully.

Thank you.

 

[Touchstone]

To Touchstone -

Does science support atheism?

Peace,
Ed

“Support” is a tricky word to apply. I can say the following:

1. Science CANNOT falsify a God that is unfalsifiable. This is typically what is presented by mainstream flavors of theism. No amount of science will “support” a proof that such a god doesn’t exist.
2. If atheism is true, the testimony of science is broadly, and increasingly compatible with the idea that ideas of gods and the supernatural are more than imaginative.
3. Science can, and has, falsified various religious claims about God that are subject to falsification. YEC ideas about a 6,000 year old earth, for example, have been overwhelmingly discredited. If the reality of God is attached to claims of that particular interpretation of Genesis (and I’m not supposing that anyone here is making that claim, but I hear it often enough!), then science has provided a strong epistemic basis for rejecting the idea of that God as a real entity.

That said, I think the more deeply one learns about science, and gains expertise in physics and biology (in particular), the more superfluous theism seems to be. At the same time, science is increasingly able to provide models that account for the psychology of mysticism and religion as a human inclination – in naturalistic terms.

I can’t say if that’s “support” for atheism – depends on specifically what you call ‘support’ (direct? indirect?). But the apparent superfluity of theism, combined with workable (and improving) explanations for why theism is as prevalent as it is,* as an imaginary construct*, yields “atheism” as the most parsimonious answer of all the ones in front of us.

-TS

 

[Leela]

I’m asking (in the thread’s title, which I presume is why you are here) for scientific proof that supports atheism. So far you have delicately provided none whatsoever. Thank you for at least admitting that such proof is not forthcoming

If all you want to kow is whether anyone thinks that science can prove that God does not exist, the reason you are not getting the straightforward answers you want is because the answer is so obvious. No one thinks that science can prove that God does not exist anymore than science can prove that unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist. The more interesting question is whether we have good reason to believe in the existence of gods or unicorns and what we should believe based on our incomplete knowledge and in the absence of such good reasons.

You seem to take the inability of science to disprove religion as proof of religion. The fact is that if we had good reason to believe that any religion has it right, the beliefs of that religion would be part of our scientific understanding of the world. For exmaple, if Jesus ever returns and demonstartes his superpowers, his power to perform miracles will be a scientific fact.

Unlike theology, the mark of a high quality scientic idea is broad exposure to being clearly identifed as mistaken if it is indeed mistaken.

This statement is either absurd or you have left out some words you intended to include. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. In future please proofread your posts more carefully.

I think his statement makes perfect sense. If it would be meaningless for a statement to be false, what could it possibly mean for the statement to be true? We have to be able to imagine how our experiences would be different if the statement were NOT true to be able to verify that it IS true. This is why falsifiability is a requirement for a testable scientific hypothesis that aspires to some day be a scientific theory such as Darwinism (and unlike ID).

Best,
Leela

 

[Touchstone]

I don’t. I can’t think of a way to falsify such a hypothesis. If it’s not falsifiable, even in priniciple, there’s little point in worrying about it’s truth or falsehood. There’s no way to tell. If that weren’t the case, how would you know? No matter what, you could always suppose some Designed was pulling strings from somewhere higher up the abstraction chain. And no one could possibly show you anything that works against that idea, except for it being superfluous, unneeded.

The principle of falsifiability was made popular by Antony Flew, who now believes in a Deist God and in his book There is a God shows why he has evolved toward the idea of God in spite of his earlier insistence upon falsifiability.

secularhumanism.org/library/exclusive/young_01-05.htm

Falsifiability proceeds from simple reasoning, as a meaningful requirement for starters. All it takes is the question: if I have no way to know a proposition is false, what meaning is there in saying it is then “true”? That is, the ‘truth’ of a proposition is inextricably linked to its liability to being false.

That is a conclusion one might (and should) arrive at on one’s own. But long before Flew was on the scene, Karl Popper had established falsifiability as a core feature of scientific epistemology among his peers in the scientific community. Not saying that Flew wasn’t a proponent of falsifiability, but that the idea predates and spans far beyond Flew.

And interestingly, Flews latter-day convictions about God would be good examples of just the kind of ‘true/false’ equivocation Popper was on about in terms of scientific thinking. It’s Flew’s prerogative to embrace whatever beliefs he wants, but it’s a powerful question to put back to him: what would falsify that conviction? I can’t think what would falsify that for Flew.

How do you know scientifically as a proven fact (as opposed to a lofty speculation) that the great human drama has no divine Playwright and Director in the wings?
I don’t, and that question is so overloaded with epistemic problems, it’s difficult to say anything more than that. You’re just asking for proof for a universal negative, which either means you’re taking me for a fool, or you haven’t thought through your question.

I’m asking (in the thread’s title, which I presume is why you are here) for scientific proof that supports atheism. So far you have delicately provided none whatsoever. Thank you for at least admitting that such proof is not forthcoming

Maybe I can refer you to this post I just put up:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4958006&postcount=182

There is no evidence possible that will falsify your theological commitment (divine Playwright/Director), so it’s a fools errand to look for any; no matter what we observe, you can always lay the “Playwright” idea over it, and it will remain safe from falsification.

Short of proving a negative, though, all the knowledge that science builds over time serves to “bridge gaps”, gaps which have historically been thought to be God-driven. The complexity and diversity of biological life, for example, has historically been a source of intuitive support for the idea of divine special creation – how on earth could all these animals and organisms have come to be!!! Evolution is wholly compatible with orthodox Christian theology, but at the same time it provides an “efficient cause” for the “miracle” of biological development; God may have “wound up the process” and let it go, but evolutionary theory substantiates the idea of that process as an automatic, law-based one, rather than something that demands an interactively-involved creator God.

And of course, the unverifiability of the existence, attributes, or behavior of claimed Gods lends credence to the idea that they are imagined, rather than somehow actual-but-unverifiable. God might be actual, but in terms of evidence and analysis, such claims are more economically explained as imaginative experiences, rather than veridical ones.

Unlike theology, the mark of a high quality scientic idea is broad exposure to being clearly identifed as mistaken if it is indeed mistaken.

This statement is either absurd or you have left out some words you intended to include. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. In future please proofread your posts more carefully.

Thank you.

I think that says what I intended, although I’m sure I could be more clear (I did fat-finger the words “scientific” and “identified”, sorry!). The idea here is that ideas that aren’t at risk of being falsified, and robustly falsified are intrinsically weak ideas in scientific epistemology. Strong ideas are ones that are liable to being falsified, and pass the test. The weakest ones are the ones we can’t even see how to falsify.

If there is no divine Playwright, how would you come to such a finding? What is the evidence that would establish that? Using that as an example, one can see the contrast with a strong idea like “all species are descended through inheritance and variation from a single, common ancestor species”. With the idea of common descent, you have a wealth of possibilities that can come up to falsify that idea. I forget who quipped it, but the common chestnut thrown out there is the identification of a fossilized rabbit in the pre-Cambrian strata. That would deal a very serious blow to the whole idea in one stroke. If we were to find that the earth is just 6,000 years old, the idea would be falsified, at least in any form like Darwin and those after him have supposed.

It’s an idea that is fully at risk of being falsified. Which is why it’s performance and coherence in the face of all new incoming evidence which may falsify it gives substance to the idea of “support” for that idea.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hecd2

I think you are on dangerous ground if you seek to dismiss “ugly” art as worthless.

It is certainly worthless to those who appreciate the beautiful. Acid rock I’m sure is worth something to those who have twisted souls. It is ugly and worth nothing to me. I daresay it would have been worth even less to Beethoven and Mozart.

So do you also think that nothing can be beautiful without beng true? How about the Shrine at Meshed, or the Egyptian monuments at Luxor or the songs of Qawalli or a Mormon choir in full throat or the gorgeous theatre of a Shinto ceremony?

There are things that are partially true and therefore have a partial beauty to them that can be appreciated by anyone. The soul that yearns for God, even though it might mistake the object of its yearning, is still trying to connect with the Absolute … and that yearning always has something beautiful about it that will be reflected in the art of such a religion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hecd2
Not only do you feel yourself competent to define what is true in science (according to what is difficult to understand apparently ), but you also feel yourself competent to define what is true art and what is not on the entirely spurious criterion of what is beautiful or ugly to you. Don’t you see how ridiculous this is?*

Don’t be absurd. You judge what is beautiful and ugly by your own criterion, don’t you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

Strong ideas are ones that are liable to being falsified, and pass the test. The weakest ones are the ones we can’t even see how to falsify.

The Deist God of Einstein he should have regarded as a strong one, and he found no way to falsify it. Surely you agree to that. Atheism he found repulsive … wouldn’t that be because he found it a weak idea? And that is the subject of this thread. Does science strengthen the idea of atheism. Einstein certainly didn’t think so. Apparently he could not falsify the seeming likelihood that the universe, so full of laws, must have a lawgiver that he was give the name of God, for want of a better term.

By the same token, I would see the universe not through the exclusive prism of science, but also through the prisms of poetry, music (of the spheres), and drama. It is only the much vaunted arrogance of science (not all scientists) that claims to be the final judge in all matters of any significance.

The tyranny of the Church that modern science once rebelled against, has become the tyranny of Science against which the Church must now rebel.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

from Karl Popper

“I do think that all men, including myself, are religious. We do all believe in something more and–it is difficult to find the right words-than ourselves. While I do not want to set up a new kind of faith, what we really believe in is what we call a Third World, something which is beyond us and with which we do interact, in the literal sense of interaction, and through which we can transcend ourselves. It is a kind of give and take, but not on the animal expressive level, of learning from works that have been created. The arts are an example. Music is the art that means the most to me. I can lose myself in my music which for me is an objective experience through which I try to improve myself.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

And of course, the unverifiability of the existence, attributes, or behavior of claimed Gods lends credence to the idea that they are imagined, rather than somehow actual-but-unverifiable.

What you say may well be true of many gods. I think we decide for ourselves which gods are easily put away, and then debate the rest. But to say that there is no God because many gods seem unverifiable is a non sequitur.

It would be as if you could say for certain there are no civilizations living elsewhere in the universe because be cannot verify any of them. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

*I was never dependent on rationalism as the basis of my faith, but I was quite confused at points about my faith’s compatibility with rationalism. People typically desire compatability with rationalism, for it has a stellar reputation in at least some areas, so there is often a strong motivation to “rationalize” the faith of the believer… not predicating faith on it, but making efforts to “integrate” with it, for lack of a better word.

That’s fine as far as it goes. But it often doesn’t go very far, and faith and rationalism march off in different directions.*

I’m sure you’ve already noticed it: not only does faith march off in different directions, but rationalism also very often marches off in different directions. There are as many rationalisms that are unverifiable as their are faiths; indeed, it sometimes seems to me that some rationalisms are built entirely on faith … such as atheism.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

Strong ideas are ones that are liable to being falsified, and pass the test. The weakest ones are the ones we can’t even see how to falsify.

The Deist God of Einstein he should have regarded as a strong one, and he found no way to falsify it. Surely you agree to that.

From what I’ve read of Einstein, that would certainly be a weak idea, a personal conjecture, if you asked Einstein. That doesn’t mean it’s trivial, as in “not about something important” to Einstein, but he was acutely aware of the intractability of his Spinoza-God ideas, a kind of rationalist-pan(en)theism that would thoroughly defy falsification.

Just take a quick scan of Einstein’s invocation and utilization of these “strong” ideas of God. Notably, one comment he became famous for that may relate here – “God doesn’t play dice” – was refuted by the evidence that has come in. What Einstein meant by “God” and “dice” turned out to be just that, the universe incorporates randomness at its lowest level, and is not exhaustively deterministic.

Even so, talking about Einstein and God is tricky business. “God” was a metonym for “ordered, physical law” in ways that a hardcore atheist could nod along with.

Atheism he found repulsive … wouldn’t that be because he found it a weak idea?

No, not at all. When I say “strong” and “weak” here, I’m speaking in epsitemic terms. The idea of a godless, impersonal universe is simply abhorrent, and offensive to some people, making that “weak” as a matter of *palatability *or psychological acceptability. Einstein wasn’t so strident as that, but was decidedly commited to the idea of “something” pulling some strings and ordering fundamentals somewhere up the chain, even if it wasn’t ‘personal’ in the sense most Catholics understand that term. If you read his writings, this is a clear theme, his preference and affection for belief in a universe where “God doesn’t play dice”. But the weakness of an impersonal material reality for Einstein was not epistemic weakness, but rather that he found such conjectures unappealing. As that belief lies beyond the scope of verification and falsification anyway, it hardly mattered, at least in terms of science and objective knowledge.

And that is the subject of this thread. Does science strengthen the idea of atheism. Einstein certainly didn’t think so. Apparently he could not falsify the seeming likelihood that the universe, so full of laws, must have a lawgiver that he was give the name of God, for want of a better term.

Your words here remind me of this quote from Einstein:
Albert Einstein:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
– Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

more here (but Einstein’s views on God and religion deserve more nuanced treatment than the list of quotes there, or whatever apologetic material you are cribbing off, above).

I think many an ardent atheist would subscribe to that sentiment. Einstein just made a habit of asserting some license over the use of words like “God” that later apologists key off of.

By the same token, I would see the universe not through the exclusive prism of science, but also through the prisms of poetry, music (of the spheres), and drama. It is only the much vaunted arrogance of science (not all scientists) that claims to be the final judge in all matters of any significance.

I think the arts are valuable source of rich experiences for humans to explore and enjoy, and are “true” in their own way, as methods of understanding each each other, and expressing ourselves. And much of what makes art appealing is underlying science – symmetry, patterns, nested relationships, etc.

It’s quite a self-serving view to suppose that scientists, or those who appreciate science deny the value and utility of the arts. In my experience that is not at all the case.

The tyranny of the Church that modern science once rebelled against, has become the tyranny of Science against which the Church must now rebel.

The master has indeed become the slave!

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

And of course, the unverifiability of the existence, attributes, or behavior of claimed Gods lends credence to the idea that they are imagined, rather than somehow actual-but-unverifiable.

What you say may well be true of many gods. I think we decide for ourselves which gods are easily put away, and then debate the rest. But to say that there is no God because many gods seem unverifiable is a non sequitur.

I agree. I don’t suppose that follows, either. If you read what I said, I affirmed that the unfalsifiable God is… unfalsifiable. That other falsifiable gods have been falsified doesn’t change that a bit. Unfalsifiable is still unfalsifiable in any case.

It would be as if you could say for certain there are no civilizations living elsewhere in the universe because be cannot verify any of them. Wouldn’t you agree?

Yes. It is believed that there are no black swans, until one is discovered. But until the black swan is discovered, it’s reasonable to suppose they don’t exist. We have no Pink Unicorns produced for us either, and I suppose they are in the same position; if one is to be produced, well, then we shall have to revise our thinking. But as things are, we simply note that we have no basis for believing in such things, even though one might possibly be produced some time hence.

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hecd2

Is there any misrepresentation to which you will not stoop?

What is it about the distinction between recognising the merits of an argument, and relying on the authority of an individual that you don’t understand? I am astonished that you think any of these scientists represent credible authorities on philosophy or metaphysics.

I never represented Einstein as an authority on philosophy. What I did say was that he saw no impediment in science for him to conclude that some kind of God exists. I also said in so many words that he found atheism fanatical insofar as it seeks to use science as a tool against religion, and especially when atheists seek to use the name of Einstein to represent their view. Do you actually read my posts, or do you make up their gist with a faulty memory??

I said, The man is a hateful atheist, as anyone without a log in his eye can plainly see. You replied: Well, he is a certainly an atheist, and you can choose to hate him if you wish - that probably will do you more harm than it does him.

"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the “no-contests.”

I don’t hate Dawkins. I pity him.

Was Dawkins, saying this, ignorant of Copernicus (or deliberately concealing the fact that Copernicus was a Catholic priest)?

Was Dawkins ignorant (or concealing the fact) that Gregor Mendel, the founder of the science of genetics, a Catholic priest?

Was Dawkins ignorant of (or concealing the fact) that George LeMaitre, a Catholic priest, published the paper that led ultimately to confirmation of the Big Bang theory.

Does Dawkins mean to have us believe that all scientists who believe in a personal God are “know-nothings,” “know-alls,” or “no-contests.”

I could easily supply a dozen other quotations of this type that tell us Dawkins is a fanatical atheist who is more arrogant and ignorant than the people he despises.

 

[edwest2]

“Support” is a tricky word to apply. I can say the following:

1. Science CANNOT falsify a God that is unfalsifiable. This is typically what is presented by mainstream flavors of theism. No amount of science will “support” a proof that such a god doesn’t exist.
2. If atheism is true, the testimony of science is broadly, and increasingly compatible with the idea that ideas of gods and the supernatural are more than imaginative.
3. Science can, and has, falsified various religious claims about God that are subject to falsification. YEC ideas about a 6,000 year old earth, for example, have been overwhelmingly discredited. If the reality of God is attached to claims of that particular interpretation of Genesis (and I’m not supposing that anyone here is making that claim, but I hear it often enough!), then science has provided a strong epistemic basis for rejecting the idea of that God as a real entity.

That said, I think the more deeply one learns about science, and gains expertise in physics and biology (in particular), the more superfluous theism seems to be. At the same time, science is increasingly able to provide models that account for the psychology of mysticism and religion as a human inclination – in naturalistic terms.

I can’t say if that’s “support” for atheism – depends on specifically what you call ‘support’ (direct? indirect?). But the apparent superfluity of theism, combined with workable (and improving) explanations for why theism is as prevalent as it is,* as an imaginary construct*, yields “atheism” as the most parsimonious answer of all the ones in front of us.

-TS

“2. … more than imaginative.” I can think of nothing that is more than imaginative.

So you also subscribe to the God as a primitive survival mechanism idea. There is no way science can prove that.

It also appears that in the rejection of a god/mysticism/supernatural concept then science becomes the new god and man worships it. Science heals, science provides insights, science is the hope of mankind and, as one poster here pointed out, science cuts across all philosophical/religious barriers.

The conclusion has been reached, by some, that now that all gods have been deposed, along with mysticism and the supernatural, that man is now free. I would caution that man is less free. The only outcome is that men will worship/believe self-styled superior men with the requisite degrees, papers, honors and so on. Instead of the Bible, the latest issue of Nature or Physical Review.

In any case, allow me to outline a scenario:

Mom: Your son has expressed an interest in a god concept.

Dad: Really? I wonder where he could’ve gotten that idea from. What do you think?

Mom: Well, according to Hayakawa-Miller in the latest issue of Adolescent Development, such thoughts are common for a boy his age. They suggest racial memory or outside influences, perhaps through an old book.

Dad: I see. Interesting hypothesis. Do you think an intervention is in order?

Mom: Not according to my reading of the Simonson-Baker-Simms Index. I would assess his interest as low and transitive.

Dad: I must disagree. A new paper in the latest Evolutionary Psychology recommends immediate intervention.

Mom: Do you want to talk to him?

Dad: I think I will.

This future is clear but is a fantasy. Men will not lose their inborn desire to deceive and manipulate. The recent events on Wall Street show to what degree intelligent, rational and literally ‘by the numbers’ men can cause global hardship for their fellow human beings. Not to mention a certain individual convicted of a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme.

In such a future, men will manipulate others, invent facts and modify reality through eloquent and high sounding words and speeches. They will compete with others, and the reigning individual or group will develop followers, only to be deposed later by a more superior individual or group, and so on. They will not have your best interests in mind.

By keeping things about man’s true nature vague and fluid, men will believe it is OK to do whatever they want. The result is nihilism, profound selfishness, and anarchy. We’re seeing some of that today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

Yes. It is believed that there are no black swans, until one is discovered. But until the black swan is discovered, it’s reasonable to suppose they don’t exist. We have no Pink Unicorns produced for us either, and I suppose they are in the same position; if one is to be produced, well, then we shall have to revise our thinking. But as things are, we simply note that we have no basis for believing in such things, even though one might possibly be produced some time hence.

That is a provisional case for theism. If there is a God, if we search hard enough, sooner or later we will discover Him. If we fail to search, we will not likely find Him. But we will not find him with our intellect alone, nor with all the skill and machinery of science. But neither will all the skill and machinery of science be of the slightest use in falsifying Him.

Even so, talking about Einstein and God is tricky business. “God” was a metonym for “ordered, physical law” in ways that a hardcore atheist could nod along with.

Would a hardcore atheist nod along with this?

“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

The master has indeed become the slave!

And the new master is learning a new kind of tyranny.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

Yes. It is believed that there are no black swans, until one is discovered. But until the black swan is discovered, it’s reasonable to suppose they don’t exist. We have no Pink Unicorns produced for us either, and I suppose they are in the same position; if one is to be produced, well, then we shall have to revise our thinking. But as things are, we simply note that we have no basis for believing in such things, even though one might possibly be produced some time hence.

This is the most interesting remark you have made so far. I’m reminded of the ancient theory of atoms that was repudiated by Aristotle on the grounds that you cannot prove atoms to exist because you cannot see them. But men of science kept looking through the centuries until their vision was sharpened by time, effort, and insight. Not being able to find the black swan does not mean the black swan does not exist.

So it may be for those who continue to seek God, even when they cannot see Him.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can read this two ways. Either you are supposing that faith is fundamentally rational conceptually, in which case I think we can quickly get down to basic assumptions and see that faith is predicated on something other than objective analysis, or you are saying that faith never claims to be reasoning all the way down, and affirms its own subjectivity.

If it’s the latter, then I think we have accord; faith is something outside of beyond reason.

to be clear i am saying that the Christain faith is entirely an exercise in rational dissection of the evidence.

I was never dependent on rationalism as the basis of my faith, but I was quite confused at points about my faith’s compatibility with rationalism.

thats very common, people want their faith to match up with there understanding. its like trying to do calculus on a old casio wristwatch calculator.

but instead of questiong the capacity of their understanding, they throw out the math.

to me thats ridiculous, but people are raised with the idea that they can understand anything. belied as that is by our limited neuaral bandwidth.

People typically desire compatability with rationalism, for it has a stellar reputation in at least some areas,

yeah, everybody wants to eat at the cool kids table.

so there is often a strong motivation to “rationalize” the faith of the believer… not predicating faith on it, but making efforts to “integrate” with it, for lack of a better word.

unfortunately some people call their belief a faith when what they really have is a “what-i-tell-folks-i-believe-until-something-more-popular-comes-along.”

That’s fine as far as it goes. But it often doesn’t go very far, and faith and rationalism march off in different directions.

this is the part i don’t see, rationalism and faith march along hand in hand, as far as i can tell. atheism, seems to have a veneer of rationalism, that when stripped away exposes it as belief held by desire, more than by any rational idea.

of course, thats my opinion, maybe because i deal with so many discovery channel scientists, and youtube amatuers, my opinion may be tainted

that said, what makes you think rationalism is seperate from faith?

 

[Touchstone]

So you also subscribe to the God as a primitive survival mechanism idea. There is no way science can prove that.

I wouldn’t say it’s a survival mechanism. Rather, I suppose, from what I’ve read, that it’s more an artifact of our mental faculties that are important for survival. Intentionality, as I mentioned above, is an important aspect of the human experience for survival. Both in dealing with other humans, and non-human threats about in the environment, alertness to cues and messages about the intentions of others, man or animal, can be the difference between life and death. So, that sensitivity would contribute to a psychological disposition that has man “seeing intent and design everywhere”. That isn’t “religion” in itself, but a kind of fertile ground for it.

As far as proving it, science is eliminative with respect to those questions. It’s a forensic question, and as such we can never “recreate” it in the lab. We can’t prove what happened, but we can develop models that are increasingly robust in their ability to integrate the evidence we do have, explain the (religious) phenomena we say, and to provide a step-wise, evolutionary account for the development of those behaviors.

Which means we might expect to be furnished with a theory that has good explanatory power, solid evidential support, and is remarkably precise in its testable predictions about spirituality and mysticism. God and the supernatural are thus not disproved so much as they are obviated. They simply aren’t needed to explain what’s going on, and simpler, more economical answers would be available.

It also appears that in the rejection of a god/mysticism/supernatural concept then science becomes the new god and man worships it. Science heals, science provides insights, science is the hope of mankind and, as one poster here pointed out, science cuts across all philosophical/religious barriers.

I understand what you are getting it, but this strikes me as an exercise in projection, the above; projecting all the problematic aspects of worship of a personality onto a methodology. Science does provide knowledge and technologies that are useful in medicine, computing, transportation, etc., but not by the “will and whim” of Science, but through the labors of efforts with scientific methods. Science is natural, and “open source” – it’s not magic, and it’s not driven by the caprice of some ineffable deity. It is liable to scrutiny and accountable to criticism. It is in many ways the very things that the gods are not.

It’s just a tool. A very sophisticated tool, but a tool in man’s hands, nothing more.

The conclusion has been reached, by some, that now that all gods have been deposed, along with mysticism and the supernatural, that man is now free. I would caution that man is less free. The only outcome is that men will worship/believe self-styled superior men with the requisite degrees, papers, honors and so on. Instead of the Bible, the latest issue of Nature or Physical Review.

I think that part of what has been, or is being deposed is the pervasive concept of “worship”. That, as above, strikes me as another example of projection. Subscribers to science do not bow down, or prostrate themselves to science as some brute authority, as they have done for millenia before various gods. Science is not a personality, but a method, a tool. It certainly does carry a lot of brand equity in some aspects of life (medicine, for example), but it’s an open, accountable methodology, borne of skepticism and critique. I guess you might call skeptical critique and objective analysis “worship”, but really, isn’t just slapping the problems of supernaturalism on something very different – naturalism?

I suspect it is.

[dialog elided to make my post fit]

This future is clear but is a fantasy. Men will not lose their inborn desire to deceive and manipulate. The recent events on Wall Street show to what degree intelligent, rational and literally ‘by the numbers’ men can cause global hardship for their fellow human beings. Not to mention a certain individual convicted of a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme.

Check.

In such a future, men will manipulate others, invent facts and modify reality through eloquent and high sounding words and speeches. They will compete with others, and the reigning individual or group will develop followers, only to be deposed later by a more superior individual or group, and so on. They will not have your best interests in mind.

Nothing is perfectly fool-proof, or… criminal-proof, but here you are leaning right into the strength of science as a methodology. It’s something like an open democracy in politics – equipped with checks and balances, and a structure that gives it a kind of durability and “self-healability” that serves it well precisely because of the dangerous inclinations you mention. Democracy ain’t foolproof either, but as the saying goes, it’s difficult to find a different system that comes close in its robustness in facing those problems.

Science is predicated on objective verification. This is a strong form of defense against the kind of conspiracy and corruption you are concerned about here. “Show me the data”, and “OK, if that’s true, let me try and produce this myself, according to your specification”. These are systemic features that work to minimize and eliminate subjectivity, bias and dishonesty in dealing with the evidence and analysis. No human enterprises are fool-proof, but science ain’t Wall Street, or the RCC.

By keeping things about man’s true nature vague and fluid, men will believe it is OK to do whatever they want. The result is nihilism, profound selfishness, and anarchy. We’re seeing some of that today.

Peace,
Ed

Out of space to post (post limit). More anon.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

Yes. It is believed that there are no black swans, until one is discovered. But until the black swan is discovered, it’s reasonable to suppose they don’t exist. We have no Pink Unicorns produced for us either, and I suppose they are in the same position; if one is to be produced, well, then we shall have to revise our thinking. But as things are, we simply note that we have no basis for believing in such things, even though one might possibly be produced some time hence.

This is the most interesting remark you have made so far. I’m reminded of the ancient theory of atoms that was repudiated by Aristotle on the grounds that you cannot prove atoms to exist because you cannot see them. But men of science kept looking through the centuries until their vision was sharpened by time, effort, and insight. Not being able to find the black swan does not mean the black swan does not exist.

So it may be for those who continue to seek God, even when they cannot see Him.

I believe I’ve been quite consistent, if you go back and read my posts. I don’t think there’s a good basis for thinking God exists, or any gods or anything supernatural at all, but even so, God might exist. A black swan was eventually discovered (lots of them!), but the Pink Unicorn is missing still. Is God like the black swan, or a never-to-be-found Pink Unicorn?

We can’t say for sure, but can only go on what reason and our desires demand, in some combination or another.

-TS