Does Science Support Atheism?

[Nebogipfel]

ive found a rationalist approach to the theist/non-theist struggle using basic scientific principles under the reductionist world view to be athiestic kryptonite.

It’s refreshing to meet a theist who regards athiests as Supermen…

(That was a joke, BTW. A humourous, tounge-in-cheek remark. Please don’t take it too seriously)

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It’s refreshing to meet a theist who regards athiests as Supermen…

(That was a joke, BTW. A humourous, tounge-in-cheek remark. Please don’t take it too seriously)

uch:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I would still quote that essay, had it been written by Joe Sixpack.

But it wasn’t written by Joe Sixpack. And the notion that Joe Sixpack would have greater insight into Intelligent Design than Darwin and Einstein is laughable.

I also don’t know how to say it any more clearly. Your authority is Sagan and Dawkins. Mine is Darwin and Einstein. “You pays your money, you takes your choice.”

If there is a God who intervenes in the physical world, why are there no traces of his intervention?

How do you know there aren’t? Because you have not seen them does not mean they have not happened. Certainly if they did happen, you would explain them away as natural phenomenon.

The simplest explanation that fits these observations is just that there is no God.

No, for you it’s the easiest explanation … you of little faith.

I’d love to know what any of this has to do with how science contributes to the notion there is no God, not even a God of Darwin or Einstein. If you would just dare to read a book that you don’t already agree with, such as former atheist Antony Flew’s There Is a God, or Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God, you might open yourself to insights that are not so simplistic as the ones you have just offered.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Nebogipfel

As I said; the lack of footprints in the flour;

How do you expect to find any using the scientific method? First, the scientific method takes the position of methodological atheism, so even if real evidence did arise it would be considered an anomaly, an outlier in the data, to be rejected. Secondly, the scientific method requires repeatable experimentation, problem is, God is a person who has sovereignty over us (i.e. is not subservient to our pokes and prods) and therefore is inherently unpredictable from our perspective.

Therefore, the scientific method is such that it cannot provide the footprints in the flour for things like miracles and the like. It can provide data which suggests God through philosophical reflection however (i.e. things like the fine-tuning of the universe), but it is a loss to address things like miracles which are inherently unpredictable, because they are caused by a person.

Therefore, to claim that a method of inquiry which is inherently setup to reject evidence of God, which when applied gives no evidence of God, as to somehow be positive proof for atheism, is misguided. It would be like saying “I don’t believe there are fish less than 2 inches wide in this lake, because I haven’t caught any” when you are tossing in a net which has a mesh size greater than 2 inches!

 

[hecd2]

JDaniel:

Why don’t you hear from religious scientists? Because it would lead to the downfall of their standing in the science community. While a few have risked it, the adamantly secular wing of science has put the fear of death into the religious scientist. Outing the religious scientist is like what Cuban children, during the 60’s and 70’s, did to their parents. They were “turned in” by their own children for any talk overheard that sounded even the least anti-Castro.

hecd2:

I don’t think that’s so. There are many openly religious scientists working at all levels of science. In my experience, a scientist’s standing in the scientific community depends on the quality of the science he or she does and not at all on his or her religious beliefs. I have personally known many openly religious scientists whose standing filled the spectrum of eminence all the way from Research Assistant to Nobel Laureate. Scientists aren’t generally interested in one another’s religious beliefs but in the quality of their scientific work. Your inflammatory references to Cuban “outing” is neither accurate nor helpful.

Well, let’s take one example. Let’s take the example of the current science of stem cell research. Let’s wonder why the scientists that are doing adult stem cell work don’t out those who want to do embryonic stem cell work. They stand back quietly as the ESC scientists forge ahead with raised voices, to get funding for their diabolical playground.

Why do you think that is?

I thought your beef was that any scientists who identified themselves as religious would be “outed” and would lose their scientific standing. When I pointed out that that is not so, you produced a completely different argument - that religious scientists are not themselves “outing” embryonic stem cell researchers. Now, apart from the fact that you cannot “out” someone who is doing something openly, how am I supposed to to know why your fellow believers are silent if indeed they are so - I cannot believe that those scientists who are opposed to ESC work and are doing work in adult stem cells are not vocal about their position - would you like to see evidence for the fact that scientists are open about the religious objections to ESC work, even in the most prestigious work on retrodifferentiation of adult stem cells in journals like Nature and Science? What would you expect them to do?

However, the bottom line is that you seem to have abandoned your initial claim that being religious is itself a disqualifier in science (which it obviously isn’t).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Alec

If you think that Einstein and Darwin were theists then you really don’t know very much about them.

Now show me your quotes that show Einstein and Darwin to be atheists.

Below you didn’t address what I said but something else. For example, I didn’t say that Darwin and Einstein were atheists - merely that they were not theists:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. (Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
(Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein’s question “Do you believe in God?”)

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, letter to an atheist (1954))

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
(Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949)

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere… Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930)

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance – but for us, not for God. (Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side)

Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it. (Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930)

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. … (Albert Einstein, Science and Religion (1941) )

I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be a more correct description of my state of mind." (Charles Darwin letter 1879)

Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. (Charles Darwin - Autobiography)

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine (Charles Darwin - Autobiography)

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws (Charles Darwin - Autobiography)

I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age - (Charles Darwin in conversation)

See also numerous biographies of Darwin. It is quite clear that , by the time of his death, he had given up any belief in a personal god.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Charlemagne II:

hecd2:

And if you think that Richard Dawkins is only an advertiser of scientific ideas then you don’t know much about him.

If you think Dawkins and Sagan are in the same class of scientific genius as Einstein and Darwin, I’d like to know where you got your academic degrees and what disciplines they are in. Obviously, a genius can go wrong. But I am only asking you to produce evidence of a great scientific genius who found in science something to make atheism credible.

Again, you are creating a strawman. I never said that Dawkins or Sagan are in the same class of scientist as Einstein or Darwin (which indeed they are not) - I refuted the idea that they were mere advertisers of ideas - indeed they are both more than this. What my qualifications have to do wiih this, is beyond me.

If the best you can do is Sagan and Dawkins, you have made a truly pathetic case. Sagan was a lightweight and Dawkins is an atheistic mudslinger of the type that Einstein would have despised.

You seem to be seduced by the idea that scientific eminence of an individual should determine whether his theological or philosophical views should be authiritative - not only is this idea a category error, it is also blatant case of the fallacy from authority. I didn’t introduce either Dawkins or Sagan into the conversation - I corrected inaccurate characterisations of their achievements. Whether Einstein would have despised Dawkins’s campaign for atheism is neither here nor there when it comes to Dawkins’s contribution to science - which is consideerably more than you claim.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[JDaniel]

I thought your beef was that any scientists who identified themselves as religious would be “outed” and would lose their scientific standing. When I pointed out that that is not so, you produced a completely different argument - that religious scientists are not themselves “outing” embryonic stem cell researchers. Now, apart from the fact that you cannot “out” someone who is doing something openly, how am I supposed to to know why your fellow believers are silent if indeed they are so - I cannot believe that those scientists who are opposed to ESC work and are doing work in adult stem cells are not vocal about their position - would you like to see evidence for the fact that scientists are open about the religious objections to ESC work, even in the most prestigious work on retrodifferentiation of adult stem cells in journals like Nature and Science? What would you expect them to do?

However, the bottom line is that you seem to have abandoned your initial claim that being religious is itself a disqualifier in science (which it obviously isn’t).

Not so. If the religious scientists involved in stem cell research were to come forward and out those that are pushing to do embryonic stem cell research, they would also be outing themselves as either being of a religious bent, or, at the least, as siding with those of the religious bent, which would have about the same consequences. There would be Big Trouble in Little China for those religious scientists. So, they do their own work and keep quiet.

The question of the killing of embryos for no good reason is (or at least should be) a major cause of professional revolt away from those scientists who support ESC research. But, as strongly as the religious scientists may feel about it, there’s no outward expression of their displeasure with it. None. Why:

Fear of loss of respect in the science community;
Fear of the potential loss of ones job for political reasons;
Fear of exclusion; etc., etc.

As for what I’d like them to do, first, go before government officials and tell the truth about what’s going on; second, go to any news media that hasn’t already bought the line from the ESC people and tell them there’s another story - the true story - that’s very different from the ones they’re getting from the ESC research people; and, third, get articles printed in journals. Yes, that’s what I’d like to see.

And, no, I did not even intimate that “being religious is itself a disqualifier in science”. Your strawmanning my argument’s position once again.

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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, letter to an atheist (1954))

No claim was ever made that Einstein believed in a personal God. However, it is plain as can be that he was not an atheist, and by your own citation that he believed in Spinoza’s god.

By the way, could you please cite the atheist to whom that letter was written?

SCIENTISTS ON RELIGION

Nicolaus Copernicus Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

Johannes Kepler Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

Galileo Galilei Laws of Dynamics

“The Holy Bible and the phenomenon of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

Isaac Newton Laws of Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“This most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped.

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting, I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” from The Autobiography of Charles Darwin.

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.”

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

George LeMaitre Father of the Big Bang Theory,
“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933

Albert Einstein Special and General Theories of Relativity

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist, and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the language in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.” Albert Einstein in Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion.

 

[CoG]

Science does not support Atheism. In fact, Atheism is a roadblock to science. All of the laws and rules of science are the design and creation of God. If you deny the nature and the logic of the creation there is no way you can understand the creation. The theory of everything seeks the source for all things and the Atheist denies the existence of the source. What is the use or purpose to search for a source you deny exists?

In order to understand or know God’s creation you must try to know the intent and mind of God. It is, of course, impossible to fully understand the mind of God. The design of man by God has given man the ability of understanding a great deal about God, His intent, and the nature of His creation. It is impossible to see and understand any part of God’s creation and not see the great glory of God. Any scientist that thinks he knows or understands any of physics or the universe and does not see God is not looking at the correct theory. Truth is God and all correct theories must be true.

 

[c659smith]

Science does not support Atheism. In fact, Atheism is a roadblock to science. All of the laws and rules of science are the design and creation of God. If you deny the nature and the logic of the creation there is no way you can understand the creation. The theory of everything seeks the source for all things and the Atheist denies the existence of the source. What is the use or purpose to search for a source you deny exists?

In order to understand or know God’s creation you must try to know the intent and mind of God. It is, of course, impossible to fully understand the mind of God. The design of man by God has given man the ability of understanding a great deal about God, His intent, and the nature of His creation. It is impossible to see and understand any part of God’s creation and not see the great glory of God. Any scientist that thinks he knows or understands any of physics or the universe and does not see God is not looking at the correct theory. Truth is God and all correct theories must be true.

It is more diffulcult to support atheism than to believe in God.

I use the word support for an Atheist cannot support anything in history if they were not there to see it.

 

[Nebogipfel]

I was struck by that comment from Einstein that atheists had “deafened themselves to the music of the spheres”. That’s very wide of the mark. One thing on which Einstein, Sagan and Dawkins all appear to agree is that scientific investigation into the natural world is also a spiritual endeavour.

Whatever else you might think of Dawkins, you cannot say that he sees no beauty or wonder or poetry in the natural world. He even describes himself as a “deeply religious nonbeliever”, if religion is a feeling of awe in the presence of something greater than onself.

 

[JDaniel]

I was struck by that comment from Einstein that atheists had “deafened themselves to the music of the spheres”. That’s very wide of the mark. One thing on which Einstein, Sagan and Dawkins all appear to agree is that scientific investigation into the natural world is also a spiritual endeavour.

Whatever else you might think of Dawkins, you cannot say that he sees no beauty or wonder or poetry in the natural world. He even describes himself as a “deeply religious nonbeliever”, if religion is a feeling of awe in the presence of something greater than onself.

But, all that is is mere pantheism, with a hint of agnostic “I don’t know” thrown in for good measure. It’s cute, but, serves no eschatological purpose.

jd

 

[Nebogipfel]

I would still quote that essay, had it been written by Joe Sixpack.

But it wasn’t written by Joe Sixpack. And the notion that Joe Sixpack would have greater insight into Intelligent Design than Darwin and Einstein is laughable.

Right. So if someone handed you an essay written by an unknown Joe Sixpack who was, say, working in an obscure patent office in Switzerland, an essay which contained some unorthodox ideas about time, space and the speed of light, you would dismiss it out of hand, because it wasn’t written by a “great” scientific authority?

Just think about what you’re saying for a minute. How do you think Einstein got to be a great scientist?

I also don’t know how to say it any more clearly. Your authority is Sagan and Dawkins. Mine is Darwin and Einstein. “You pays your money, you takes your choice.”

That is clearly said. It is also entirely wrong. I fear that comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and how it works.

And since one of your authorities clearly regards the Judeo-Christian idea of God as “childish” and “superstition”, I’m perplexed as to why you are Christian.

Perhaps he’s only an authority when saying things you already agree with?

If there is a God who intervenes in the physical world, why are there no traces of his intervention?

How do you know there aren’t? Because you have not seen them does not mean they have not happened. Certainly if they did happen, you would explain them away as natural phenomenon.

The world is full of people who say they can talk to the dead, or read minds, or heal with a touch. I see them every week on TV. The objective evidence that any of them can actually do the things they claim to be able to do, is nil. There is quite a lot of evidence that all them are, if not out-and-out charlatans, then at the very least, under a delusion.

So when I hear a second- or third-hand accound of yet another person who claims something similar, what is more likely? That this time, something truly miraculous has occured, or that it’s just another case of someone being a liar, a lunatic, or just plain mistaken?

But maybe that’s too close-minded. Of course it really could be that something miraculous has occurred. Then there’s no reason why that miracle cannot be studied scientifically, like any other of the things that we take for granted today, but would have seemed miraculous a thousand years ago.

That’s what the scientific method is for, so we can assess such claims, and try and see if they really are true.

Look at it from the other direction. If a pharmaceutical company tried to market a drug based on, well, we gave it to some sick people, and some of them got better - they’d be laughed out of court. Yet that seems to be the standard of evidence that’s applied to cases of miraculous healing.

Why should such a double standard apply?

The simplest explanation that fits these observations is just that there is no God.

No, for you it’s the easiest explanation … you of little faith.

Me of absolutely no faith whatsoever, actually.

I’d love to know what any of this has to do with how science contributes to the notion there is no God, not even a God of Darwin or Einstein.

It has absolutely everything to do with it. It goes right to the core of the question you asked: Does science support an atheistic world view? Simply saying that Einstein or Darwin believed in something like a God does not answer the question. Of course, you could have formulated the question somewhat more rigourously…

If you would just dare to read a book that you don’t already agree with, such as former atheist Antony Flew’s There Is a God, or Gerald Schroeder’s The Science of God, you might open yourself to insights that are not so simplistic as the ones you have just offered.

Well, since neither Schroeder nor Flew is a “great scientist” in the league of Darwin and Einstein, by your own argument, they have nothing of relevance to say on the subject. Or is an authority only truly authoritative when saying something that you already agree with? I fear you have a log in your eye that you need to attend to.

On the other hand, I have be meaning to read Flew’s book for some time, to see what all the fuss is about. Maybe I’ll bump it up my reading list.

Maybe you’ll get round to reading The Demon Haunted World sometime too.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Right. So if someone handed you an essay written by an unknown Joe Sixpack who was, say, working in an obscure patent office in Switzerland, an essay which contained some unorthodox ideas about time, space and the speed of light, you would dismiss it out of hand, because it wasn’t written by a “great” scientific authority?

I wouldn’t dismiss it because I wouldn’t have had the foggiest notion what he was talking about. As hardly anybody else did either.It’s a tribute to his genius that it took everyone so long to grasp him. Did it ever take anyone very long at all to grasp Dawkins or Sagan?

I repeat, if anyone is going to look to the authority of Sagan and Dawkins for an opinion on science and God, anyone else has just as much right to go to Einstein and Darwin.

Come now, isn’t that so?

Then there’s no reason why that miracle cannot be studied scientifically, like any other of the things that we take for granted today…

Ah, not so at all. Why do you think a miracle would be subject to scientific study? Do you think a miracle can be put on a petri dish or seen at the end of a telescope. A miracle is something that has already happened. By the time a scientist arrives all the conditions for discovery have passed … much as the birth of the universe has passed, and because a miracle, no scientist can prove anything one way or the other.

Simply saying that Einstein or Darwin believed in something like a God does not answer the question. Of course, you could have formulated the question somewhat more rigourously…

I thought I had formulated it rigorously enough. But I’ll try again. What knowledge has science produced that would lead us to believe there is no God? Zero knowledge in my opinion. What about yours?
*
Well, since neither Schroeder nor Flew is a “great scientist” in the league of Darwin and Einstein, by your own argument, they have nothing of relevance to say on the subject.*

Non sequitur. I never said only great scientists have anything to say on on this subject. I said if you are going to use the authority of Sagan and Dawkins, why do you discount the authority of Einstein and Darwin? Isn’t it because Dawkins and Sagan were atheists, and so are you? Perhaps the ten-ton log is in your eye, and you have no desire to get it out?

As for myself, while I am disappointed that Darwin and Einstein never seemed to believe in a personal God, I am also satisfied that neither was an atheist, and both believed in Something resembling a creative genius. Their language is certainly too specific to put them in the atheist camp.

If you do read Flew’s book, remember if you will that Flew was adamantly atheistic for his entire life, until about three years ago. As he says in his book, his change of mind came largely through the gradual chipping away of his resistance to the idea of Deity as science produced more and more evidence of First Cause and Intelligent Design, whereas it has produced no evidence at all to encourage the atheist way of thinking.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nibogipfel

Would you care to summarize in a paragraph or two the best argument Sagan raises in The Demon Haunted World that includes scientific evidence to support atheism?

That is the subject of this thread.

 

[edwest2]

Scientists are not philosophers? When did this happen?

What? The moment the Scientist walks into the lab, he shuts off his believer or unbeliever part of his brain and at the end of the day, the moment he leaves the lab, he switches it back on? Don’t you think the scientist, when he observes something remarkable, doesn’t think about it? That his believer or unbeliever mind, when it is far from the lab, doesn’t consider the effect on society, and himself, of scientific discoveries? Not just the practical effect but the sociological effect?

And don’t you think he knows, even if he’s visited just one atheist web site or read one book written by an unbelieving scientist, how much science has, in fact, helped the atheist cause?

Give me a break.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

edwest

And don’t you think he knows, even if he’s visited just one atheist web site or read one book written by an unbelieving scientist, how much science has, in fact, helped the atheist cause?

Agreed, science has helped the atheist cause, but not by supplying specific discoveries that disprove the existence of God. Where science has helped atheism is most in its stress on the materialistic nature of the world and the laws governing scientific research and truth. By focusing so exclusively on its own methodology, it has become myopic about the possibility of any other methodology … for example, the methodology Pascal called the “reasons of the heart” which in the affective realm are as important, probably more important, than the methodology of the brain when approaching the most ultimate realities we have to confront: Who are we? Why are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? With due respect for the good that science does in the world, it is useless when attempting to answer these questions and therefore does not bother with them. Hence the prevalence of atheism in the scientific community.

 

[edwest2]

With all due respect to the good work done by science, they must also realize that there are lines that should not be crossed. And sometimes, clear, provable realities become buried underneath false and deceptive ideas. Example: human embryonic stem cells. Some say, They can cure us! But at what cost? An embryo that will die before developing fully into a human being? Then I read in my local paper that religious arguments against such research don’t make sense. These cells, I’m told, lack fingers and toes, so you can’t possibly call them a baby. Why not? Ask a human embryologist.

So the flames are fanned and the excuse becomes, religion is stopping science! It’s standing in the way! We all started out as embryos - science can prove that.

Peace,
Ed