Is science inherently atheistic?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

That does not make its rejection logically.

I might as well argue that, Stephan Jay Gould first promoted NOMa, you suggest it as fact.

On a slightly unrelated note, I think NOMa has much wider applications than just to the science-religion interaction.

I think it's unfortunate that NOMa is chiefly applied to religion. If it were primarily applied to science/moral decisions, it would be a lot clearer. I think Gould formulated it in terms of religion because of his interest in the creationist problem. He wanted to show how science could be in conflict with mistaken, clearly untrue religious beliefs, without conflicting with religion per se.

The distinction between science and moral decisions is more clear-cut, though.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Look at westprog's posts. He's made a habit of trying to tell scientists what science is or isn't, what it can or cannot do--all in a vain attempt to redefine his pet hypothesis such that science can't touch it.

That's a laughable distortion. Presenting what I'm saying as some kind of Ayatollah storming into the labs and smashing testtubes. What my posts have been doing is to point out what science actually does say - as seen from scientific papers that are actually being published - as opposed to the half-baked anti-philosophy philosophy being posted on this thread.

I don't need to tell science what to do. Science is doing it. There are people who want science to say other things. Unfortunately what science says is very clearly defined - and it says what it says, not what people with an axe to grind would like it to say.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by 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".

That is what they say. It might not be what some people here claim science says - but it is actually what science says.

And science doesn't "deem things worthy", like the Queen choosing which charities to patronise. It finds them part of science or not part of science. The misinterpretation of what science includes and excludes is at the heart of this discussion.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Anyway the thread's topic is not being discussed at all (a certain atheism that is intrinsic to science and gets it going the way it is, or its lack thereof). It's just a rehash of the same arguments about theism and its social implications, this time held against you, me and a couple more that being essentially non-theists dare to avoid scolding those who passively held a few indemostrable beliefs they trust.

I'm glad that someone else has noticed this. There's been a consistent avoidance of the central question.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

Except that someone just insisted that "science has no limits". It's rather implicit in the claim, wouldn't you say? If science is not able to tell us how to live our lives, that would be a limitation on science.

It could just be that you are asking a nonsense question like what is the sound of blue, or what is the colour of happiness.

Science absolutely can tell us how to live our lives. It will tell us about how to extend it, how best to gain pleasure from it, what happens if we stick our head in a blender or hand in a hot fire, how to procreate, and any number of other things that tell us how to live our life.

That it does so without the need to issue moral directives based on unstated and/or just downright silly assumptions is not a limitation, it's a strength.

Again, in the field of 'how to live our lives' then provided we live in reality, science is the only tool we have.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

No, I wouldn't. Because it would be false. I explained why.

It's not ignored; we simply disagree with you. Untestable predictions, and statements which do not generate them, are pure fantasy--there's literally no way to evaluate them. Science's standards for determining which ideas are worthy of consideration--those standards you've spent our entire conversation evading--specifically address such issues.

And this is yet again another example of you attempting to tell scientists what science is.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't personally own science. Using terms like
"pure fantasy" and "worthy of consideration" show an agenda that is not scientific.

I have not avoided these questions - indeed, I've been among the first to insist that science has areas which it does not address. You're the one who's decided that when science excludes something, that it involves a value judgement - when such value judgements are entirely foreign to science and the scientific process.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

That is what they say. It might not be what some people here claim science says - but it is actually what science says.

And science doesn't "deem things worthy", like the Queen choosing which charities to patronise. It finds them part of science or not part of science. The misinterpretation of what science includes and excludes is at the heart of this discussion.

So what is science's opinion on whether or not I am Angelina Jolie's mother?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

So what is science's opinion on whether or not I am Angelina Jolie's mother?

Science can certainly pronounce on such a matter. What it can't do is tell you whether or not to go to see an Angelina Jolie film.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

Why are you asking anyone about any apparent paradox’s in abstract maths? .

It's not an apparent paradox. If you can partition a subset of n-dimensional Euclidean space in such away that, when you try to assign a measure to each subset two congruent sets have different volumes, you have a paradox. Of course, like Zeno's paradox and Russell's paradox, you can resolve it by assuming that one of your original premises was false.

We are talking about the claim that philosophy shows that science does not deal with “reality” or with “truth”. So the question to you is - does Hausdorff prove that when science studies stars and planets (for example), those stars and planets are not actually “real”?

Is Hausdorff a proof that when science says that it finds evidence of evolution, that is in fact not the “truth”?

Instead of asking people to read a link to a maths paper, why don’t you just explain here in simple language, why you claim that Hausdorff’s Paradox shows that science is not measuring “reality” or determining “truth” … eg why the stars and planets are not “real” and why evolution is not “true” … just explain that here in straightforward language please.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

What has that got to do with science accepting that objects really exist on earth and in space, and that events really do happen in this universe? .

I'm soory, but did Hausdorff live is some other universe?.

I don’t know, where did Hausdorff live? But more to the point, why does Hausdorff matter? … in which respect, please answer the question above re. planets, stars and evolution.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

Planes really do fly in the air.

Yes, but that's irrelevant to the Hausdorff paradox.

It’s entirely relevant if you are claiming that Hausdorff shows that science does not deal with “reality”.

According to science, planes “really” do fly in the air.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

And you really can travel on a plane from the USA to India if you want to.

Again, completely beside the point with respect to the Hausdorff paradox.

OK, in that case you yourself are agreeing that Hausdorff is irrelevant and that Hausdorff does not show that science fails to measure what science calls “reality” and “truth“.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

Do you think that's just some sort of a fiction being mirrored from a parallel universe or something? .

Do you understand that that the Hausdorff paradox is true in this universe and that there are still many daily flights from Boston to Mumbai in the very same universe?.

Are you claiming that Hausdorff proves that science is not dealing with “reality” and “truth“, yes or no?

If the plane really does fly, and if it’s true that you can fly on the plane from the USA to India, then science IS dealing with “reality” and “truth“.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

As Richard Dawkins said " if you don't believe that gravity exists, then you are invited to test your belief by jumping from the 20th floor of a tower building". "Planes and gravity are reality, they are not just some other version of an alternative reality".

Dawkin is known for being a bit of a naive realist so I don't put much stock in his supposedly common-sense statements about the world.

Known to be naïve, by who? By you?

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

There are plenty of apparent paradoxes and unsolved problems in maths, particularly in more abstract fields.

Again, the Hausdorff paradox: not an apparent paradox.

I prefer the caution of saying “apparent”, thanks. … unless you are saying Hausdorff is a literal absolute certainty to show that science is not dealing with “reality”?

Are you claiming that?

If that is what you are claiming then why are there no papers in the science literature pointing out that science is all a mistaken illusion because Hausdorff has proved as a matter of literal certainty that science is not dealing with “reality” and cannot determine the “truth”?

I think your Hausdorff reference is entirely irrelevant to the philosophical claims in this thread which say science does not know what “reality” is and does not understand “truth”.


Definition of Paradox -

par·a·dox
   [par-uh-doks]
noun
1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

Origin:
1530–40; < Latin paradoxum < Greek parádoxon, noun use of neuter of parádoxos unbelievable, literally, beyond belief. See para-1 , orthodox
Related forms
par·a·dox·i·cal, par·a·dox·al, adjective
par·a·dox·ol·o·gy, noun
Synonyms
3. puzzle, anomaly, riddle.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

But that really has no bearing at all on whether physicists, chemists and biologists, and indeed mathematicians, are dealing with real objects and real events when they study objects and events in this world.

But it does demonstrate that such scientists can, and often do, hold naive metaphysical positions about the relationship between science and reality.

Does it demonstrate that? OK, well instead of asking people to read a link to a maths paper, why don’t you explain here in your own words why you think Hausdorff shows that scientists are not detecting & measuring “reality” … why planets, stars, planes, people etc. are in fact not real, and why evolution is not “true”. Just explain why Hausdorff shows that no such things are “real” or “true“.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

What did you think a book on Density Matrix theory was about anyway?

I assumed that you were grossly misunderstaing the Hausdorff paradox.

No. I was doing exactly what you were doing, and posting the suggestion that you should read an irrelevant maths book.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

Here is another good book that I once had to try to read -

Stochastic Methods in Quantum Mechanics, S.P. Gudder, Elsevier North Holland publ N.Y., 1979

What does this have to with the topic at hand?

About as much as your link to Hausdorff does.

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

Why don’t you try reading that instead of reading about Hausdorff and his paradox (rhetorical).

Why don't you try understanding the metaphysical consequences of the Hausdorff paradox instead of recommending irrelevant reading material?

Why don’t you try reading the irrelevant maths books?

If you think Hausdorff is relevant, then (to repeat) - instead of telling people to read abstract maths papers, why don’t you explain in simple language why you are claiming that Hausdorff shows that science does not know what “reality” is?

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Originally Posted by IanS

Or if you are particularly interested in discussions of “reality” then you could try reading Roger Penrose’s book which is supposed to be in “popular” form suitable for a general public readership -

The Road to Reality, Roger Penrose, Vintage Books London, 2005.

That was supposed to be on the UK Sunday Times top ten best seller’s list. Though I think most readers without a PhD in theoretical physics will probably find that to be rather a struggle. But then, Penrose does seem to be rather a strange sort of scientist.

Sounds interesting.

Well, then read it (I have)

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by westprog

I hate to break it to you, but you don't personally own science. Using terms like
"pure fantasy" and "worthy of consideration" show an agenda that is not scientific.

This coming from the guy who's spent the entire thread trying to tell us what science is and isn't. At least I have an informed opinion on the subject--I'm an actual scientist.

Quote:

You're the one who's decided that when science excludes something, that it involves a value judgement - when such value judgements are entirely foreign to science and the scientific process.

Right, right--it's SOOOO unscientific to say things like "There's not enough evidence to discuss that".

You're still trying to tell scientists how to do science. It hasn't worked thus far, and you're showing more and more ignorance of what science is and how it works. You really should consider actually talking to scientists before you demand we bow down and accept your concept of the field.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

....
No, neuroscience tells us what is. Saying "should" is a mental construct simply doesn't cut it, because different people have different ideas about what "should" should be, which doesn't tell us which "should" should be.

There is no such thing as "should" outside the context of an evolved emotion. Brains differ. The scientific process can manage the fact all humans are not the same with no difficulty.

You are welcome to believe there is a "should" and to continue to look for said "should" by contemplating 'should'.

It's no wonder you don't see how science can determine what "should" should be. You are thinking in an old paradigm where humans have all these 'special' qualities like a purpose for being, morality beyond the physical brain (where your magical 'should' resides), and beauty and love cannot be understood or measured by science.

Shift paradigms to where the modern science of neurobiology resides.

Humans determine what 'should' should be individually. It's a biological function in the brain like fear, joy and sadness are. Looking at non-human primates and more recently even dogs, the sense of fairness can be demonstrated to exist as a biological function. It's evolutionary path can be seen, tested, even measured.

Measuring beauty is similarly thought to be some magical thing science cannot determine. Because there is no absolute 'should' or absolute 'beauty' like there are objective measures such as absolute temperature. It is difficult for scientists to imagine a way to measure subjective properties. Scientists, skeptics and critical thinkers repeat this meme to each other making it difficult to reject it.

But now we know more about how the brain experiences morality and beauty. The measures of these things are not occurring on the conscious level of thought. But there are measures the brain is applying. If we determine what those measures are, one can apply them in the scientific process just fine.

For example: The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty

Quote:

What makes a face attractive and why do we have the preferences we do? Emergence of preferences early in development and cross-cultural agreement on attractiveness challenge a long-held view that our preferences reflect arbitrary standards of beauty set by cultures. Averageness, symmetry, and sexual dimorphism are good candidates for biologically based standards of beauty. A critical review and meta-analyses indicate that all three are attractive in both male and female faces and across cultures. Theorists have proposed that face preferences may be adaptations for mate choice because attractive traits signal important aspects of mate quality, such as health. Others have argued that they may simply be by-products of the way brains process information. Although often presented as alternatives, I argue that both kinds of selection pressures may have shaped our perceptions of facial beauty.

Studying the differences between changeable measures of beauty and fixed measures between cultures tells us a lot more about beauty that contemplating a contrived concept that beauty cannot be determined using the scientific process.

And research like this, Why Is Ethnocentrism More Common Than Humanitarianism?, tells me a lot more about morality than philosophers do.

Quote:

A compelling agent-based computer simulation suggests that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution (Hammond & Axelrod, 2006). From a neutral start, ethnocentric strategies evolve to dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) that differentiate patterns of cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. We present new analyses and simulations to clarify and explain this outcome by formulating and testing two hypotheses for explaining how ethnocentrism eventually dominates its closest competitor, humanitarianism. Results indicate support for the direct hypothesis that ethnocentrics exploit humanitarian cooperation along the frontiers between ethnocentric and humanitarian groups as world population saturates. We find very little support for the contrasting free-rider-suppression hypothesis that ethnocentrics are better than humanitarians at suppressing non-cooperating free riders, although both hypotheses correctly predict a close temporal relation between population saturation and ethnocentric dominance.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by IanS

We are talking about the claim that philosophy shows that science does not deal with “reality” or with “truth”. So the question to you is - does Hausdorff prove that when science studies stars and planets (for example), those stars and planets are not actually “real”?

What does it mean to say that the stars and planets are "real"? Exactly what does science mean when it predicts what they will do?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by westprog

Science can certainly pronounce on such a matter. What it can't do is tell you whether or not to go to see an Angelina Jolie film.

Can you point me to a reference where science has pronounced on that?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This coming from the guy who's spent the entire thread trying to tell us what science is and isn't. At least I have an informed opinion on the subject--I'm an actual scientist.

Are you? Golly.

Quote:

Right, right--it's SOOOO unscientific to say things like "There's not enough evidence to discuss that".

"There's not enough evidence to discuss that" is a neutral expression. "This subject is not worthy of my attention - for I am (pause for effect) A SCIENTIST" is just a way to try to have an opinion without having an opinion.

Are you a scientist, by the way? I seem to recall some vague hint along those lines.

Quote:

You're still trying to tell scientists how to do science. It hasn't worked thus far, and you're showing more and more ignorance of what science is and how it works. You really should consider actually talking to scientists before you demand we bow down and accept your concept of the field.

I'm telling you something you should already know - what scientists do and don't do, and what they do and don't say. And for all the requests for counter-examples which support your view of what is and isn't science, actual examples have been few and far between.

That is to say, there haven't been any.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

Can you point me to a reference where science has pronounced on that?

On evidence of heritability, certainly. Not on the specific case as far as I am aware.

However, if you were to insist that science proved that Angelina Jolie was or was not your mother, I would assume that there would be such a document somewhere to support your position.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

"There's not enough evidence to discuss that" is a neutral expression. "This subject is not worthy of my attention - for I am (pause for effect) A SCIENTIST" is just a way to try to have an opinion without having an opinion.

Huh. So that funny taste I had earlier was those words you're putting in my mouth. Good to know.

Quote:

I'm telling you something you should already know - what scientists do and don't do, and what they do and don't say.

AND YOU'RE WRONG. Just because you say it, doesn't mean I have to accept it.

Quote:

And for all the requests for counter-examples which support your view of what is and isn't science, actual examples have been few and far between.

That's right. And there's a good reason for this--you haven't asked for any examples of what *I* consider the limits of science, or what is and isn't science. You've presented straw men, like the first quote in this post, and demanded I defend them. I've no interest in such stupidity. They're not my position, so I refuse to defend those positions you demand I defend. When you can see clearly enough to read what I actually write, rather than what you want me to have written, perhaps we can have a more productive conversation--but as long as you insist on dictating both sides of the debate, it's impossible and I'll settle for simply telling you where you're wrong. You won't listen anyway, and it may help the peanut gallery.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Shift paradigms to where the modern science of neurobiology resides.

Your paradigm still doesn't give us an intrinsic rubric for which of the many "shoulds" should be.

Some people think that women should be property; some think that they should not.

Which "should" should we live by?

[Jorghnassen]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Your paradigm still doesn't give us an intrinsic rubric for which of the many "shoulds" should be.

Some people think that women should be property; some think that they should not.

Which "should" should we live by?

Property is a human construct which has no direct bearing on the physical world. It's effectively a completely unscientific creature. Thus, according to some it should be completely ignored as meaningless BS.

Now excuse me while I sit back with my popcorn and only bother reading the thread diagonally for personal amusement.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Your paradigm still doesn't give us an intrinsic rubric for which of the many "shoulds" should be.

Some people think that women should be property; some think that they should not.

Which "should" should we live by?

Because you are using a different paradigm it's like trying to understand someone speaking a different language.

If I were involved in writing laws for a society I might need to answer your question for other people. But if you just want my opinion, my brain is wired with 'shoulds' that prioritize human rights. Not only do I know that, I also know other brains are wired differently and for some men that means valuing 'shoulds' that benefit themselves with beliefs they get to own women.

Were I to try to change a society that viewed women as property I'd want to frame my arguments in terms of how not viewing women as property would benefit those men. I would not frame the argument as a human rights and a justice issue.

If I used philosophy I'd know what 'should' I believed was true. I'd understand the rationale for my decisions on which 'should' to choose, my human rights moral sense. But what would I know about the men who were viewing 'should' as what benefitted themselves? How could I understand that was the basis of their moral thinking by simply thinking about observed behaviors or looking for a societal consensus on the 'should'?

I could observe the men were self serving but where else could I go with that line of thought? Only by understanding the neurological basis for the sense of morality humans have could I fully understand what 'should' is all about. It's a much more thorough approach to 'should' than simply saying science doesn't go there.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by tsig

I have learnt that you, of course, have found a way to look down on all of them.

To look down back to them, that's why it's called post-theism.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because you are using a different paradigm it's like trying to understand someone speaking a different language.

Translation: "La! La! La! I can't hear you"

Stop behaving like a three-year-old, and admit that you're wrong.

It's not a question of a difference in "paradigms"; it's question of your not wanting to answer a question that, in you conception of reality, challenges your "paradigm".

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Says the guy who posted the whole foam about imagining posters with beards. But by all means, go on.



"Striking a nerve" and disrupting a conversation is something even a 3 year old can mention. I never understood why a certain kind takes that as some kind of "I win" condition. It's not like being disruptive or annoying is some achievement or even hard.



I think I already did, for example in #99.



Sure:

#167 is the same strawman based on reading just the topic title. Your being unable to read or comprehend doesn't mean you have a point. Yes, the OP and the linked blog never claimed that science has a belief, but merely that what is called an atheistic world view in the rest of American society is really just what kind of hypotheses are normal in science.

Plus a silly appeal to motives and/or consequences in, for example, asserting that anti-theism "tries to install a hole where a belief is, just for the sake of watching people suffer".

Basically yes, if you wanted my opinion, that's what it is: a fully irrelevant mix of a blatant strawman, plus a couple of assorted fallacies.

#182 is pretty much just the standard irrelevant handwaving that comes up when someone tries to rationalize their beliefs. Most of that is really irrelevant, and quite trivially so.

E.g., telling a joke or having a weird dream at night have absolutely nothing to do with beliefs. Just because I dreamed a dragon last night, doesn't mean I believe in dragons, it just means I played Skyrim. That I dreamed that I'm the emperor of the world at some point after playing City Of Villains, doesn't mean I believe I should take over the world. Or about jokes, telling for example the Radio Yerevan joke I use as an example for a certain kind of fallacy around here, doesn't mean I believe anything about criminality in the former Soviet Union. I.e., they're not even remotely analogous to the problem of conflicting beliefs, and as such it's irrelevant.

Besides, even "but I keep it compartmentalized" is ultimately missing the point. The only reason it's compartmentalized nowadays is exactly in response to the fact that all we know about universe and morals is conflicting with religion. That's why people resort to building those unnatural mental walls. It's only "human" nature as a mechanism to deal with cognitive dissonance. As long as there wasn't a pressure against applying the religious dogma as scientific truth, people went and actually did what was a natural consequence of that belief. Like burning heretics.

You can't complain about how those meanie anti-theists are missing the point by criticizing something you keep compartmentalized, if that's the reason why it's compartmentalized in the first place. It's like proposing to fire the whole police department, because, hey, I haven't been mugged or robbed in decades. You can't argue that X is pointless because Y, if X is the only reason for Y in the first place.



Err, sorry to burst your bubble, but the world doesn't revolve around you. Those were not in response to you, and I don't feel particularly bound by what you'd like to exclude from the conversation either. You're not that important.

Besides, after posting that content-free trolling, you don't get to also play the card of complaining that someone else doesn't stick to what you want discussed on the topic. One or the other, you know?

And you dare to speak of strawmen! Shame, shame, cheeky boy, speaking of 3 years olds who using a baroque lexicon try to hide their infantile approach to discussion of your "You said B when you wrote A, and C by the way, just because I hate your guts".

<More about this, next weekend, as I learn a lot analysing your -and others- malafide, and I need time to do it>

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Trakar

LOL!
you got me!
A scientific theist toll-troll looking for billy-goat
gruffs to make my stew chewy.

Most of the actual atheists that I've ever met and known, I discovered their atheism only after we had known each other for years and even then it was as the result of some unrelated coincidence. Like most theists, most atheists do not wear their beliefs on their sleeves and it rarely ever enters normal conversations and discussions, even among good friends. Most of my atheist friends were more surprised to find out about my theistic beliefs than I think I was to find out about their true lack of beliefs.

I pop into this forum every month or two, and that is probably the most I talk about my beliefs and understandings anywhere, ever. It just isn't a normal conversation topic issue.

Well, my friend, you know I tend to consider those harbouring theistic ideas as humans, not as people who is wrong. I, as a human, find in musical harmonies and bel canto, the sense of power and safety our ancestors found 50,000 years ago with their similar family voices all together making the clearing vibrate, so it's not a mystery to me that others can find "miraculous" some features of the universe, and develop religion-like approaches to them, and not be so fond of music. Everyone is human as they can.

The problem is that this works as you are not entitled to such opinions in this forum because you can't clone them in another person's mind by following certain mental and communicational steps. Because, of course, if you hold some theistic notion then you are trying to make others to share it uncritically. That's the role you'll be assigned here unless you clearly pray constantly the anti-creed.

The problem with this thread is that science is not inherently atheist. Some have simply mixed up some narrow scoped visions and hindrances in the history of science, all because of religious interference. Some here may have made Galileo their champion and identified with him, but they are only similar to him in telling that there's only one tide a day to "prove" the earth si muove. Atheism is not part of the scientific method, nor an unified creed held by all the scientific community, no matter science itself is probably the second most frequented way to atheism. Good information is the first one.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Huh. So that funny taste I had earlier was those words you're putting in my mouth. Good to know.

AND YOU'RE WRONG. Just because you say it, doesn't mean I have to accept it.

THEN DEMONSTRATE IT.

You've basically accepted my contention that certain subjects are out of the scope of science - but you've continually implied that this somehow makes us able to draw conclusions about their objective truth. This is a bad scientific principle.

For example - continental drift. When the concept was initially proposed, it was rejected by the scientific consensus because while there was some empirical evidence to support the idea, no mechanism was proposed. Science was entitled to take the default position that continental drift did not take place - however, anyone who took that to mean that science supported a static continental model faced being caught out later on.

Quote:

That's right. And there's a good reason for this--you haven't asked for any examples of what *I* consider the limits of science, or what is and isn't science. You've presented straw men, like the first quote in this post, and demanded I defend them. I've no interest in such stupidity. They're not my position, so I refuse to defend those positions you demand I defend. When you can see clearly enough to read what I actually write, rather than what you want me to have written, perhaps we can have a more productive conversation--but as long as you insist on dictating both sides of the debate, it's impossible and I'll settle for simply telling you where you're wrong. You won't listen anyway, and it may help the peanut gallery.

I believe the "telling me I'm wrong" bit.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The problem with this thread is that science is not inherently atheist.

There are people who are insisting that it actually is. That's simple enough. There are also people claiming that it isn't - but... That's the harder position to argue with, because it isn't clear just what they are really saying.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by westprog

THEN DEMONSTRATE IT.

*Calmly, slowly* That's... not... how... it... works.

You've already had the concept of burden of proof explained to you.

You're proposing not just a new theory, but an entirely new way of looking at the world by invoking concepts that are described in meaningless terms.

You need to support this. Even ignoring the fact that your concepts seem to be tailored made to be so intellectually hollow as to be pointless, you still hold the burden of proof.

You need to show evidence for this claim your entire argument is based on, that is the claim that there is supernatural, paranormal, unnatural, "outside the realm of science" or whatever you want to call this utterly meaningless intellectual copout.

You need to show evidence for these things. And "Defining them as not needing evidence" is not evidence.

Quote:

For example - continental drift. When the concept was initially proposed, it was rejected by the scientific consensus because while there was some empirical evidence to support the idea, no mechanism was proposed.

"Science was wrong, therefore woo." Got it.

Actually it's worse then that. It's more "Science wasn't right initially, therefore woo."

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Your paradigm still doesn't give us an intrinsic rubric for which of the many "shoulds" should be.

Some people think that women should be property; some think that they should not.

Which "should" should we live by?

It's really very simple. We should just do brain scans on the people who think one way and the other, and... anyway, science is an entirely reliable guide, and there's no need for anything else.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

*Calmly, slowly* That's... not... how... it... works.

You've already had the concept of burden of proof explained to you.

You're proposing ...

You've come up with this a few times. Let me express what I'm saying very, very simply.

Q: Is science inherently atheistic.

Westprog: No.

Now, you might have all kinds of ideas as to what I'm proposing, but *calmly, slowly*, that's it.

I suppose that there might be a burden of proof on me to show that science is not inherently atheistic - but if so, I don't think that there's any less of a burden of proof on the people who claim that it is.

I know that there are lots of other interesting things we could be discussing, but I'd like to stick with the four words at the top of the page.

Take it as slow as you like.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

"Science was wrong, therefore woo." Got it.

Actually it's worse then that. It's more "Science wasn't right initially, therefore woo."

Paraphrasing as misunderstanding. Not quite slow enough, clearly.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by westprog

You've come up with this a few times. Let me express what I'm saying very, very simply.

Q: Is science inherently atheistic.

Westprog: No.

And this might shock you but some people disagree with you and the people that disagree you are providing more evidence and better arguments that their position is correct then you are. You're supposed to take in that information and provide feedback to the people disagree with you by explaining your position or addressing the rebuttals they have. That's how a discussion works.

Science isn't anything. Science doesn't have positions or opinions or beliefs or ideas or agendas. Science is a method. A method for determining facts in a way that is accurate as possible.

Right now the evidence as we have it by using the scientific method is that God doesn't exist, all the silly copout appeals to supernaturalism, unknowability, and determinism not withstanding.

Reality is atheistic. Science just reflects that.

Therefore your statement that science is theistic is a positive statement and must be defended. And defended empirically not with made up concepts like supernatural.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And this might shock you but some people disagree with you

Fine, argue about that. How many posts are dealing with science, and what science is? How many posts haven't dealt with science at all?

I'm not simply asserting this about science. I'm basing it on the scientific literature.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by westprog

Fine, argue about that. How many posts are dealing with science, and what science is? How many posts haven't dealt with science at all?

I'm not simply asserting this about science. I'm basing it on the scientific literature.

It might "help" if you offered a citation or ten.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

...The problem with this thread is that science is not inherently atheist. Some have simply mixed up some narrow scoped visions and hindrances in the history of science, all because of religious interference. Some here may have made Galileo their champion and identified with him, but they are only similar to him in telling that there's only one tide a day to "prove" the earth si muove. Atheism is not part of the scientific method, nor an unified creed held by all the scientific community, no matter science itself is probably the second most frequented way to atheism. Good information is the first one.

If you'll pardon the terminology,...you are preaching to the choir my friend! I agree with you completely and fully.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Trakar

If you'll pardon the terminology,...you are preaching to the choir my friend! I agree with you completely and fully.

If, by "choir", you mean the people who have posted most recently in this thread.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Right now the evidence as we have it by using the scientific method is that God doesn't exist,

If you'd said "the evidence as we have it is that drinking excessive coffee can give a heightened risk of cancer", I'd be entitled to say "Where are the studies? What papers said this? What's the evidence? What controlled experiments were done?"

If you then said "It's not relevant to the facts. Science itself supports my position - we don't need specific studies", and offered a lot of word-play and logic-chopping to prove your point - well, I think I know what that's called.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

It might "help" if you offered a citation or ten.

That's rather my point. There is none. There's no scientific literature supporting the position that science is inherently atheistic. Look at what's been put forward - Darwin and some speculative cosmology. Mostly it's purely philosophical arguments.

Even when Dawkins writes books on religion, they aren't shelved with his scientific works.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Science isn't anything. Science doesn't have positions or opinions or beliefs or ideas or agendas. Science is a method. A method for determining facts in a way that is accurate as possible.

Right now the evidence as we have it by using the scientific method is that God doesn't exist, all the silly copout appeals to supernaturalism, unknowability, and determinism not withstanding.

Reality is atheistic. Science just reflects that.

Therefore your statement that science is theistic is a positive statement and must be defended. And defended empirically not with made up concepts like supernatural.

Huh? What? I peek in and see this?

I reject what appears to be your abuse of the concepts involved and what appears to be logical fallacy or few. In particular, the fallacy of the excluded middle and poisoning the well. I do, however, admit that I haven't been following this particular discussion closely, and so could be incorrect.

Science can be considered methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. To say that science is atheistic can be true... under very loose definitions of atheism. To say that theism and atheism are completely irrelevant would be far closer to the truth of the matter, especially under the standard conditions where the god or gods are exceedingly poorly defined or are not defined at all, and thus are untestable and unfalsifiable, no matter what.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's rather my point. There is none. There's no scientific literature supporting the position that science is inherently atheistic. Look at what's been put forward - Darwin and some speculative cosmology. Mostly it's purely philosophical arguments.

Even when Dawkins writes books on religion, they aren't shelved with his scientific works.

I meant some citations in which scientists say what you claim they say.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I meant some citations in which scientists say what you claim they say.

I'm sorry, this thread seems to be slipping away from me, can you or Westprog please specify what statements are being asserted?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Trakar

I'm sorry, this thread seems to be slipping away from me, can you or Westprog please specify what statements are being asserted?

Who what now?

OK, I'm claiming that if science was, in fact, inherently atheistic, that would imply that it would be explicitly stated somewhere within the field of science. I pointed out that it has not been explicitly stated within the field - and made the claim that no such publication exists. I may be wrong - but if I am, it will be easy to refute by mentioning such a publication. I can't cite a publication that supports what I'm claiming, because I'm saying that no such publication exists.

(I'm not conceding the main point simply because Ukranian Journal Of Physics has an article called "Why God Does Not Exist". The general case remains clear.)