Is science inherently atheistic?

[corbin]

Originally Posted by IanS

Ah, good, so you are now going to give us the evidence which shows that only metaphysics, and not science, can decide what is “true” and what is “real”, right?

The question of what is true and what exists aren't scientific questions. They are philosophical questions. Ontology is a branch of philosophy.

There is no scientific answer to the question "What exists?" because it doesn't even matter for science what exists - doing science only requires a correspondance between observations and our models. In fact, scientific theories fit the observations just as well if we assume that all phenomena are mental representations in our mind rather than external physical reality.

I also don't think you know what metaphysics is - it's not making up religious stuff. The branch of philosophy that deals with fundamental questions about the nature of being and the world is actually the definition of metaphysics, or at least the one that applies to this discussion.

Originally Posted by IanS

There is already a scientific answer to the question of whether God exists. The answer is that as far as we can tell he does not. Because even apart from the fact that not even the slightest hint of any such God has ever been detected, there is also the problem that as far as we can honestly tell, supernatural beings cannot exist anyway (because they would violate all known laws of science).

So science has long since answered questions like that.

Science has only answered that there is no evidence to support the existence of a literalistic, physical God. The proposition "God exists," is typically not asserting the existence of some man in the sky.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It's irrelevant to the topic at hand,

<long winded rant snipped>

If you had it parted in smaller chunks you could have produced more foam, like beer dropped from a mile height.

Arguments without an specific addressee that stroke a nerve, and somebody speaks of "psychiatrists"

Back on track ...

Have you something to say about science and its inherent/non inherent atheism -and not about using scientific method to debunk religious beliefs-? I mean, about atheism as one structured core of science without what science can't continue to exist as it is -that is the real meaning of "inherent"-.

Have you something to comment about my post #167 and two last paragraphs in #182? Comments that relate to the subject at hand, i.e., "is science inherently atheistic?" and not about Tordesillas or the Magna Carta, nor general struggle with science ruling out Santa or not and people having troubles accepting it.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar
There is no harm in finding specific behaviors and actions inappropriate or inconsiderate. The harm is in attributing the actions and expressions to be the result of the external belief-systems rather than the internal interpretations and personal expressions of that individual's behavior. IOW, blame the specific theist/atheist for their individual actions, not the belief system that they claim to represent.

What if the belief system says kill all those who don't agree with the belief system?

What if cows had wings?

Are you concerned about the specific practices of a specific belief-system, or how some belief systems have been individually interpreted by some people?

Either way, my response would be to hold individuals responsible for their own interpretations and how they translate those interpretations into behavior, not disparagement for the belief system over how some choose to interpret and incarnate the principles of that belief system.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

...Can you divide up a round, physical object in such a way that half of it is congruent to a third of it?

You could certainly do it so that they each possessed a congruent surface, or superficial aspect, given adjustments/variences in density, it is even possible to compose perfectly congruent topologies out of the distinct mass proportions. What priniciple are you attempting to demonstrate?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

By using empiric evidences in and for the purposes they were designed to best address (simplistically, questions of "how, when and where") and leaving the purposes (simplistically, questions of "why" and the valuations of the answers to those questions) of other studies (philosophy and theology) to those fields of study?

If you wish to propose that science as an integrating branch or tool of the philosophy of naturalism, that is certainly one route to take, though then you do relegate yourself to the promotion of a belief system and all which that entails, not merely the lack of a belief.

When one tries to articulate the difference between how and why, the lines blur.

I don't believe in the mysterious 'purpose' for our existence. I see the why/purpose question as a manufactured problem there is no evidence of, just like gods are manufactured myths.

Show me evidence there is such a thing as our purpose for being here and I'll look at it.

As for morality, just like evidence of gods, there is zero evidence morality comes from anywhere or anything other than our biological brains (nature and nurture). As for evidence morality is rooted in biology, evidence from evolution supports the fact it wasn't instilled in us from pixie dust, it evolved in us just like other behaviors and emotions evolved.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

By using empiric evidences in and for the purposes they were designed to best address (simplistically, questions of "how, when and where") and leaving the purposes (simplistically, questions of "why" and the valuations of the answers to those questions) of other studies (philosophy and theology) to those fields of study?

If you wish to propose that science as an integrating branch or tool of the philosophy of naturalism, that is certainly one route to take, though then you do relegate yourself to the promotion of a belief system and all which that entails, not merely the lack of a belief.

Philosophy is a pile of unmitigated poop.

Philosophers try to discover the animal that left that poop without any reference to facts.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Originally Posted by tsig

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trakar
There is no harm in finding specific behaviors and actions inappropriate or inconsiderate. The harm is in attributing the actions and expressions to be the result of the external belief-systems rather than the internal interpretations and personal expressions of that individual's behavior. IOW, blame the specific theist/atheist for their individual actions, not the belief system that they claim to represent.

What if the belief system says kill all those who don't agree with the belief system?

What if cows had wings?

Are you concerned about the specific practices of a specific belief-system, or how some belief systems have been individually interpreted by some people?

Either way, my response would be to hold individuals responsible for their own interpretations and how they translate those interpretations into behavior, not disparagement for the belief system over how some choose to interpret and incarnate the principles of that belief system.

Hey, I can think of several off the top of my head.

How about the belief that certain people are witches, and should be killed as in the bible - it happened in London recently.

Or the belief that women should be stoned to death for adultery as that is what the Abrahamic bibles state. That is still being demanded in parts of the middle east.

Or that homosexuals should be denied certain rights or punished because it is an abomination.

Or that your child can't have a life-saving blood transfusion because the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Without marvelling too much on the texture and shadings of the lint I extract from my belly-button: sometimes it is by observing and considering the various ways we all entrap and obsfucate ourselves that we find the paths toward clarity and common understanding (light at the end of the tunnel).



Now that's a tangled web to read!
I apologize to all for my beguiled mangling of the language.

Contemplating the evidence we encounter is a useful exercise. Sometimes ideas come to us instantly when we observe one more thing and sometimes we have to think about that evidence for a while and some idea hits us.

But contemplating is just thinking. There is not anything magical or 'special' about contemplating behavior, motives, and values that differs from thinking about a physics problem.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Trakar

You could certainly do it so that they each possessed a congruent surface, or superficial aspect, given adjustments/variences in density, it is even possible to compose perfectly congruent topologies out of the distinct mass proportions. What priniciple are you attempting to demonstrate?

Fine let's limit the transformations to isometries, which should obvious given the reference to the Hausdorff paradox.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Trakar

What if cows had wings?

Are you concerned about the specific practices of a specific belief-system, or how some belief systems have been individually interpreted by some people?

Either way, my response would be to hold individuals responsible for their own interpretations and how they translate those interpretations into behavior, not disparagement for the belief system over how some choose to interpret and incarnate the principles of that belief system.

How do you interpret a specific instruction in a holy book to kill someone, as anything other than an instruction to kill someone?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

Philosophy is a pile of unmitigated poop.

Philosophers try to discover the animal that left that poop without any reference to facts.

many might consider this somewhat oxymoronic given the discussion to date.

Philosophy

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

When one tries to articulate the difference between how and why, the lines blur.

I don't believe in the mysterious 'purpose' for our existence. I see the why/purpose question as a manufactured problem there is no evidence of, just like gods are manufactured myths.

Show me evidence there is such a thing as our purpose for being here and I'll look at it.

As for morality, just like evidence of gods, there is zero evidence morality comes from anywhere or anything other than our biological brains (nature and nurture). As for evidence morality is rooted in biology, evidence from evolution supports the fact it wasn't instilled in us from pixie dust, it evolved in us just like other behaviors and emotions evolved.

I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, if you are satisfied and happy with your beliefs and understandings, more power to you!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by tsig

Philosophy is a pile of unmitigated poop.

Philosophers try to discover the animal that left that poop without any reference to facts.

I might put this differently even though we agree and not because you used negative terms but because I think it's better described as follows:

Philosophers contemplate observations made of human behavior and articulated values. But they leave out a wealth of evidence we have about the biological mechanisms that add much more to the picture than simple observations of human behavior.

Are there any early philosophical discussions of the morality of non-human primates and how morality evolved? Seems to me philosophers started with the false conclusion only humans had said morality. They have been playing the game with missing cards and refusing acknowledge said cards matter to the game.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Trakar

What if cows had wings?

It's a valid concern. Without some way to check your conclusions you could be completely wrong and never know it. Science doesn't include experimentation merely because we like beakers and particle accelorators--it includes experimentation because that's the only way to be sure we're right.

Quote:

Either way, my response would be to hold individuals responsible for their own interpretations and how they translate those interpretations into behavior, not disparagement for the belief system over how some choose to interpret and incarnate the principles of that belief system.

A system of belief that's prone to such errors is necessarily flawed, and therefore worthy of at least modification, and most likely should be discarded.

Quote:

By using empiric evidences in and for the purposes they were designed to best address (simplistically, questions of "how, when and where") and leaving the purposes (simplistically, questions of "why" and the valuations of the answers to those questions) of other studies (philosophy and theology) to those fields of study?

This is nothing more than NOMA, which is garbage. NOMA sounds good on paper, but theists have this annoying tendency to widen their MA into science. And the "why" presupposes there's something with intent directing things, so your argument essentially is "Why not give up and concede my point?"

FIRST you prove you have something to talk about. THEN you talk about it. Otherwise, you've got nothing to talk about.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Fine let's limit the transformations to isometries, which should obvious given the reference to the Hausdorff paradox.

Definitions, perspectives and setting understandings are important to any answer sought regardless of whether we are talking mathematics, teleogy or empirical observation.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SG

Show me evidence there is such a thing as our purpose for being here and I'll look at it.

Originally Posted by Trakar

I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything, if you are satisfied and happy with your beliefs and understandings, more power to you!

I'll take that as, "I can't show you because there is no evidence any such thing exists."

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll take that as, "I can't show you because there is no evidence any such thing exists."

You can, but doing so demonstrates that you are not willing to examine your own preconceptions.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Hey, I can think of several off the top of my head.

How about the belief that certain people are witches, and should be killed as in the bible - it happened in London recently.

Or the belief that women should be stoned to death for adultery as that is what the Abrahamic bibles state. That is still being demanded in parts of the middle east.

Or that homosexuals should be denied certain rights or punished because it is an abomination.

Or that your child can't have a life-saving blood transfusion because the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses?

These are interpretations by individuals and groups of individuals, hold the individual responsible for their actions.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by corbin

The question of what is true and what exists aren't scientific questions. They are philosophical questions. Ontology is a branch of philosophy.

There is no scientific answer to the question "What exists?" because it doesn't even matter for science what exists - doing science only requires a correspondance between observations and our models. In fact, scientific theories fit the observations just as well if we assume that all phenomena are mental representations in our mind rather than external physical reality.

I also don't think you know what metaphysics is - it's not making up religious stuff. The branch of philosophy that deals with fundamental questions about the nature of being and the world is actually the definition of metaphysics, or at least the one that applies to this discussion.



Science has only answered that there is no evidence to support the existence of a literalistic, physical God. The proposition "God exists," is typically not asserting the existence of some man in the sky.

Right. It usually consists of saying that god is beyond understanding and became man and died for me.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

If you had it parted in smaller chunks you could have produced more foam, like beer dropped from a mile height.

Arguments without an specific addressee that stroke a nerve, and somebody speaks of "psychiatrists"

Back on track ...

Have you something to say about science and its inherent/non inherent atheism -and not about using scientific method to debunk religious beliefs-? I mean, about atheism as one structured core of science without what science can't continue to exist as it is -that is the real meaning of "inherent"-.

Have you something to comment about my post #167 and two last paragraphs in #182? Comments that relate to the subject at hand, i.e., "is science inherently atheistic?" and not about Tordesillas or the Magna Carta, nor general struggle with science ruling out Santa or not and people having troubles accepting it.

tl;dr

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

What if cows had wings?

Are you concerned about the specific practices of a specific belief-system, or how some belief systems have been individually interpreted by some people?

Either way, my response would be to hold individuals responsible for their own interpretations and how they translate those interpretations into behavior, not disparagement for the belief system over how some choose to interpret and incarnate the principles of that belief system.

Then why bother with belief systems to begin with?

ETA: delete

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Contemplating the evidence we encounter is a useful exercise. Sometimes ideas come to us instantly when we observe one more thing and sometimes we have to think about that evidence for a while and some idea hits us.

But contemplating is just thinking. There is not anything magical or 'special' about contemplating behavior, motives, and values that differs from thinking about a physics problem.

I do not fail to notice the amazing and miraculous on a daily basis. Understanding the intimate details of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology and psychology and how they interact to produce the universe we perceive only adds to, rather detracting from that "magic." We look at the same things and perceive with similar understandings, but after 6+ decades I still am not so jaded, cynical and presumptive as to find the universe a "ho hum" affair, and hope I never reach that conclusion.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by jimbob

How do you interpret a specific instruction in a holy book to kill someone, as anything other than an instruction to kill someone?

How do you not consider "a holy book" to be someone's (probably bits and pieces of lots of someones) interpretation?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I do not fail to notice the amazing and miraculous on a daily basis. Understanding the intimate details of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology and psychology and how they interact to produce the universe we perceive only adds to, rather detracting from that "magic." We look at the same things and perceive with similar understandings, but after 6+ decades I still am not so jaded, cynical and presumptive as to find the universe a "ho hum" affair, and hope I never reach that conclusion.

People who don't believe in things they can't see are jaded, cynical and presumptive?

Argument by aged authority?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by jimbob

How do you interpret a specific instruction in a holy book to kill someone, as anything other than an instruction to kill someone?

But, but what if cows had wings?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

many might consider this somewhat oxymoronic given the discussion to date.

Philosophy

A moron on Oxycontin seems a fine description of philosophers.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You can, but doing so demonstrates that you are not willing to examine your own preconceptions.

Then do it.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'll take that as, "I can't show you because there is no evidence any such thing exists."

Your interpretations are yours, but they do not accurately reflect my words or meanings, for whatever that is worth.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by tsig

Then do it.

You missed what the antecedent of "you" was.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

It's a valid concern. Without some way to check your conclusions you could be completely wrong and never know it. Science doesn't include experimentation merely because we like beakers and particle accelorators--it includes experimentation because that's the only way to be sure we're right...

I generally agree, when it comes to science, and when looking for specific and direct causal relationships. In this case, the hypothetical is too broad and without proper qualification or specific example to connect it to a real-world situation for useful comparison, contemplation or discussion. I could have stopped with the three-word rejoinder you took delight in pulling out of the context of the rest of my response, and it would have completely addressed the post to which it was made. Instead, however, I listed further qualified responses and asked direct questions to elicit the details needed to present a more specific and appropriate response.

[gentlehorse]

Originally Posted by tsig

People who don't believe in things they can't see are jaded, cynical and presumptive?

Argument by aged authority?

That's not how I read Trakar. Finding the universe a "ho hum" affair is jaded, cynical and presumptive. I'd have to agree.

As for folks who believe in things they can't see, by which you probably mean "folks who don't believe in things for which there is no compelling evidence," I'd imagine that Trakar would call them skeptics, regardless of whether he agreed with them. He just seems to think that there's more to the universe than that which is explained via science. He is correct. The notion, however, that there is "something" forever and always beyond the scope of science, and that knowledge of this "something" is attainable through through the study of philosophy, metaphysics, or what-have-you, is unadulterated poppycock. This is not to say that I find the universe a ho hum affair...

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by tsig

People who don't believe in things they can't see are jaded, cynical and presumptive?

Argument by aged authority?

I neither make that argument, nor insinuate that interpretation of my words; but please do continue, I am of the impression that most people only reveal themselves in the words they choose to hurl at others.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Originally Posted by Trakar

What if cows had wings?

I am a beef on the wind. Watch how I soar.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

You can, but doing so demonstrates that you are not willing to examine your own preconceptions.

Because I don't see any evidence people have a 'purpose' as the term is being used here, you conclude I'm unwilling to examine my preconceptions. In other words, because I don't see the world the way you see it, I must be unwilling to look.

I can easily say the same about you, and I actually have evidence supported logic behind my conclusion. You cannot articulate a reason you profess a certain belief (we have a purpose and philosophy has a process) and are apparently unwilling to consider the logical conclusion you cannot articulate said reasons for those beliefs because no reasons exist.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by gentlehorse

That's not how I read Trakar. Finding the universe a "ho hum" affair is jaded, cynical and presumptive. I'd have to agree.

As for folks who believe in things they can't see, by which you probably mean "folks who don't believe in things for which there is no compelling evidence," I'd imagine that Trakar would call them skeptics, regardless of whether he agreed with them. He just seems to think that there's more to the universe than that which is explained via science. He is correct. The notion, however, that there is "something" forever and always beyond the scope of science, and that knowledge of this "something" is attainable through through the study of philosophy, metaphysics, or what-have-you, is unadulterated poppycock. This is not to say that I find the universe a ho hum affair...

I see nothing in this response that I would disagree with, there is a slight perspective difference, but our findings and understandings seem largely "congruent," even if not identical.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Andrew Wiggin

I am a beef on the wind. Watch how I soar.

Buffalo wings would definitely transition from the appetizer menu!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I do not fail to notice the amazing and miraculous on a daily basis. Understanding the intimate details of cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology and psychology and how they interact to produce the universe we perceive only adds to, rather detracting from that "magic." We look at the same things and perceive with similar understandings, but after 6+ decades I still am not so jaded, cynical and presumptive as to find the universe a "ho hum" affair, and hope I never reach that conclusion.

More straw I see.

Because I see the Universe as best described using the scientific process that is "a ho-hum" view? That's ludicrous. The Universe is fascinating and needs no magical explanations to be that way.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I neither make that argument, nor insinuate that interpretation of my words; but please do continue, I am of the impression that most people only reveal themselves in the words they choose to hurl at others.

Nice reverse twist insult.

desete

[Johnny Brant]

Scientists are by their very nature atheistic because they've got a thirst for solid evidence that can be seen, touched, smelt, heard and measured, so the concept of gods and religion therefore makes them uncomfortable because it can't be detected, so they tend to pooh-pooh it as "fairytales".
Beats me why they simply can't say "we don't know if there's a god".
Perhaps the words "we don't know" stick in their throat and won't come out.
Pity, because those words are the beginning of the search for knowledge.
Let's see if this brief vid clip works (I'm new here)-

MR. DATA-"I DO NOT KNOW"- http://youtu.be/ZcV25N37-C4

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I can easily say the same about you

You could, but you would be incorrect.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

and I actually have evidence supported logic behind my conclusion.

No, you don't. You only have deliberately misstated form of my argument (which you have been repeatedly corrected upon) and some ignorant and bald assertions about philosophy.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You cannot articulate a reason you profess a certain belief (we have a purpose and philosophy has a process) and are apparently unwilling to consider the logical conclusion you cannot articulate said reasons for those beliefs because no reasons exist.

You cannot admit that "process of philosophy" is irrelevant to the limitations of science. When ever I say "Science can't explain X", your saying "Neither can philosophy, and by the way, what is the process of philosophy?" does not refute the statement that science can't explain X.