Does Science Support Atheism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**"Plumbers are not philosophers? When did this happen?

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

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

Give me a break."**

The reason this one sounds silly to you, Ed, is that you kinda understand plumbing. This is how silly your assertions sound to people who understand science. I don’t turn off my faith when I go to work; I just can’t use it for doing science, in the same way the plumber can’t use his faith to solve plumbing problems.
 
“The essence of the theory of evolution is the hypothesis that historical diversity is the consequence of natural selection acting on variations. Regardless of the verity it holds for explaining biohistory, it offers no help to the experimenter—who is concerned, for example, with the goal of finding or synthesizing a new antibiotic, or how it can disable a disease-producing organism, what dosages are required and which individuals will not tolerate it. Studying biohistory is, at best, an entertaining distraction from the goals of a working biologist.”
—Dr. Phillip S. Skell, “The Dangers of Overselling Evolution,” Forbes 2/23/2009.
 
“The essence of the theory of evolution is the hypothesis that historical diversity is the consequence of natural selection acting on variations. Regardless of the verity it holds for explaining biohistory, it offers no help to the experimenter—who is concerned, for example, with the goal of finding or synthesizing a new antibiotic…
Phil Skell, noted Creationist author

Phil doesn’t do research any more, and apparently hasn’t kept up much, or he’d know about this:

Darwin’s Time Machine: Scientists Begin Predicting Evolution’s Next Step

**ScienceDaily (Mar. 20, 2002) — Untangling the branches of evolution’s past is a daunting enough task for researchers, but some scientists are now turning their eyes toward the future in a bid to predict evolution’s course. Barry G. Hall, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, has shown how a model of evolution developed in the lab accurately reproduces natural evolution. The research, published in the March issue of Genetics, demonstrates how the model is so accurate that it can be used to predict how a strain of bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics-giving researchers a possible tool to create drugs to which bacteria cannot adapt. **
sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020320081607.htm

Ironic, um? The very point Skell was trying to make, did him in.
 
The article you quote (read it more carefully) does not say the predictability is certain. It is still in the testing stages, which means Skell has not yet been done in.

But what has any of this to do with whether science has offered any support for atheism?

Please stay on track.
 
Hi All,

Science in the broadest sense of the word is simply our best attempts to distinguish between what we wish were true, what we were told is true by our forebears, and what we actually have good reason to believe. Having evidence in support of our beliefs has proven to be exteremely useful in our human endeavors. Science has been so successful, that people have come to see intellectual honesty as a virtue. Truth based on evidence and reason has become valued more highly than social status or truths claimed based on authority. The power that science has demonstrated in inquiry and discovering truths has eroded the power of the Church as the keepers of Truth.

Science does not support atheism, which is not a philosophy but just the abence of a particular belief, it is just that more and more people have sought evidence in support of their beliefs and found that faith, belief that is not based on evidence, is not actually a virtue. They have adopted the virtue of intellectual honesty and rejected faith as a way of knowing. People who have adopted a scientific approach to inquiry tend to reject religion (at least in far greater numbers than nonscientific people). It isn’t because science has it in for religion, it’s just that religion hasn’t been able to stand up to scientific inquiry. We don’t have good reasons to believe the claims made by religion. It’s not that there is no evidence whatsoever, but we simply don’t have the sort of convincing evidence that we would need in order to believe such extraordinary claims in any other area of our lives. Fewer and fewer people are seeing any reason why we should have a lower standard of evidence for religion than we do for economics, history, astrononomy, or agriculture. They question why we would make a special category of beliefs that are not subject to the sort of evidence and arguments we would want to see for our other beliefs, and finding no answer, reject faith-based belief as intellectually dishonest.

Best,
Leela
 
Leela said:
Hi All,

Science in the broadest sense of the word is simply our best attempts to distinguish between what we wish were true, what we were told is true by our forebears, and what we actually have good reason to believe. Having evidence in support of our beliefs has proven to be exteremely useful in our human endeavors. Science has been so successful, that people have come to see intellectual honesty as a virtue. Truth based on evidence and reason has become valued more highly than social status or truths claimed based on authority. The power that science has demonstrated in inquiry and discovering truths has eroded the power of the Church as the keepers of Truth.

Science does not support atheism, which is not a philosophy but just the abence of a particular belief, it is just that more and more people have sought evidence in support of their beliefs and found that faith, belief that is not based on evidence, is not actually a virtue. They have adopted the virtue of intellectual honesty and rejected faith as a way of knowing. People who have adopted a scientific approach to inquiry tend to reject religion (at least in far greater numbers than nonscientific people). It isn’t because science has it in for religion, it’s just that religion hasn’t been able to stand up to scientific inquiry. We don’t have good reasons to believe the claims made by religion. It’s not that there is no evidence whatsoever, but we simply don’t have the sort of convincing evidence that we would need in order to believe such extraordinary claims in any other area of our lives. Fewer and fewer people are seeing any reason why we should have a lower standard of evidence for religion than we do for economics, history, astrononomy, or agriculture. They question why we would make a special category of beliefs that are not subject to the sort of evidence and arguments we would want to see for our other beliefs, and finding no answer, reject faith-based belief as intellectually dishonest.

Best,
Leela
Click to expand...
It isn’t the first time nor the last that man has made human idols.
 
Leela said:
Science does not support atheism, which is not a philosophy but just the abence of a particular belief, it is just that more and more people have sought evidence in support of their beliefs and found that faith, belief that is not based on evidence, is not actually a virtue. They have adopted the virtue of intellectual honesty and rejected faith as a way of knowing.
Click to expand...
If atheism is simply the absence of a a belief in a deity, then atheists would be unable to assert anything about the existence of a deity. Your definition of atheism is applicable to the minimally conscious.

I’m surprised to see you, outed multiple times for plagiarism on this forum, writing about intellectual honesty. :rolleyes:

Your scientism has no merit.
 
1holycatholic said:
If atheism is simply the absence of a a belief in a deity, then atheists would be unable to assert anything about the existence of a deity. Your definition of atheism is applicable to the minimally conscious.

I’m surprised to see you, outed multiple times for plagiarism on this forum, writing about intellectual honesty. :rolleyes:

Your scientism has no merit.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: you aint kidding brother 🙂
 
Leela

So you are saying that science by its very exclusive methodology is a proof that God does not exist?
 
buffalo said:
Scientism.
Click to expand...
Scientism? All I’ve said about science is that science is about basing beliefs on evidence and reason. Pretty much everyone likes to think that they have good reasons to believe what they believe these days. How is that scientism?
 
Leela said:
Scientism? All I’ve said about science is that science is about basing beliefs on evidence and reason. Pretty much everyone likes to think that they have good reasons to believe what they believe these days. How is that scientism?
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have been more specific.

The reasoning part is the idol.

We can only see partial evidence. That in itself makes the reasoning suspect. Ideologies also make the reasoning directed. That makes man’s ability to reason corrupted. So if you want to base your beliefs on incomplete, faulty and limited conclusions, go ahead.
 
1holycatholic said:
If atheism is simply the absence of a a belief in a deity, then atheists would be unable to assert anything about the existence of a deity.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The term “atheist” is nearly empty. All it is is a label for someone who does not believe in gods. I’ve never met a single atheist who thinks that they know that gods do not exist and would make any such assertion about the existence of gods. They doubt that gods exist, but they do not assert that gods exist.
1holycatholic said:
Your definition of atheism is applicable to the minimally conscious.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Atheism is just the state we are all born into–a lack of belief in gods.
1holycatholic said:
I’m surprised to see you, outed multiple times for plagiarism on this forum, writing about intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...
Plagiarism? How could I be guilty of plaigarism when I don’t even use my real name? Since you expressed your concern I’ve been careful to supply links with any referenced material.

At any rate, the iintellectual honesty I’m talking about is only claiming to know when you have good reasons and saying “I don’t know” to questions you don’t know the answer.
1holycatholic said:
Your scientism has no merit.
Click to expand...
What does scientism have to do with anything? I don’t subscribe to scientism. This is just a label you and buffalo are throwing out to avoid addressing my arguments. It is just name-calling, not argument. This is exactly the sort of thing that scientifically minded people are rejecting in greater and greater numbers in favor of honest inquiry.

Best,
Leela
 
Leela said:
Plagiarism? How could I be guilty of plaigarism when I don’t even use my real name? Since you expressed your concern I’ve been careful to supply links with any referenced material.

At any rate, the iintellectual honesty I’m talking about is only claiming to know when you have good reasons and saying “I don’t know” to questions you don’t know the answer.
Click to expand...
Anonymity is your RIng of Gyges. It is quite revealing.
Leela said:
What does scientism have to do with anything? I don’t subscribe to scientism. This is just a label you and buffalo are throwing out to avoid addressing my arguments. It is just name-calling, not argument. This is exactly the sort of thing that scientifically minded people are rejecting in greater and greater numbers in favor of honest inquiry.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. You’ve repeatedly beat the drum of scientism in this forum. When cornered you go into denial. Blather, rinse, repeat.
 
buffalo said:
Yes, I should have been more specific.

The reasoning part is the idol.

We can only see partial evidence. That in itself makes the reasoning suspect. Ideologies also make the reasoning directed. That makes man’s ability to reason corrupted. So if you want to base your beliefs on incomplete, faulty and limited conclusions, go ahead.
Click to expand...
I think you are right that some people make a god of Reason, treating it as an essence that can be possessed. I mean reason only as a word for rationales that we think are good.
 
Leela said:
Just more ad hominems.
Click to expand...
Exposing your dishonest behavior on this forum isn’t an ad-hominem.

You should be ashamed of your behavior. Instead, you attempt to claim anonymity gives you the right to behave dishonestly. You aren’t getting a pass on plagiarism, which is intellectual dishonesty and theft.
 
1holycatholic said:
Exposing your dishonest behavior on this forum isn’t an ad-hominem.
Click to expand...
I haven’t done anything dishonest, but even if I had, your comments about plaigarism are just ad hominem arguments. You are attacking me as a “dishonest” person. You are not contesting the the ideas. Same with your continual name-calling with Scientism. You are just labelling me and not arguing any point. I wish you would focus on the conversation instead of trying to discredit others. If only Christians were more Christian…
 
Leela said:
I haven’t done anything dishonest, but even if I had, your comments about plaigarism are just ad hominem arguments. You are attacking me as a “dishonest” person. You are not contesting the the ideas. Same with your continual name-calling with Scientism. You are just labelling me and not arguing any point. I wish you would focus on the conversation instead of trying to discredit others. If only Christians were more Christian…
Click to expand...
You have been repeatedly and unashamedly dishonest on this forum. This is an example of your flagrant dishonesty where you present someone else’s argument as your own. 😦 It’s not Christian to confirm you in your sin.

This is Scientism. Your posts promote scientism, you simply object to having that fact pointed out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top