Atheism is a faith

[doppelganger]

You apparently don't know much science.

He doesn't need to. He has faith.

 

[MoonWater]

indeed all evolution does is disprove creationism and evolution itself, while more probable is still a theory and full of holes. For all we know some God got the process started and simply allowed things to evolve on their own or maybe guided the evolution. Science may be able to disprove, or at least cast doubt on, different ideas and tenets of different religions but this in no way proves that there is no God anymore than casting doubt on or disproving a few ideas about genetics proves we have no DNA.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

He doesn't need to. He has faith.

Good point.

If I may quothe the good professor (the same one who, according to at least one person in this thread, doesn't know what he's talking about): “The idea that scientific and religious camps have historically been separate and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science.”

 

[doppelganger]

Good point.

If I may quothe the good professor (the same one who, according to at least one person in this thread, doesn't know what he's talking about): “The idea that scientific and religious camps have historically been separate and antagonistic is rejected by all modern historians of science.”

More often than not, those who think otherwise (in either the "theist" or the "atheist" camp) seem to not understand the nature and purpose of "science" or the scientific method, IMO.

 

[Popeyesays]

More often than not, those who think otherwise (in either the "theist" or the "atheist" camp) seem to not understand the nature and purpose of "science" or the scientific method, IMO.

I would agree. IMO, science and religion are two ways of examing Creation, both are required to understand (as far as we are capable of understanding).

Regards,
Scott

 

[Rolling_Stone]

More often than not, those who think otherwise (in either the "theist" or the "atheist" camp) seem to not understand the nature and purpose of "science" or the scientific method, IMO.

I agree. I like what Neils Bohr said about science: "The task of science is not to tell us how the world is, but rather to see what can be said about it." To go beyond what science says about the world is faith. That is, an atheistic interpretation of science is faith.

 

[doppelganger]

I agree. I like what Neils Bohr said about science: "The task of science is not to tell us how the world is, but rather to see what can be said about it." To go beyond what science says about the world is faith. That is, an atheistic interpretation of science is faith.

Bohr said: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature."

When you stop and think about the steps in the scientific method, this is actually rather obvious. Science gives us models for organizing our experience of reality and making predictions. Experimentation and repeatability allows us to fashion ever more "useful" models for prediction and helps develop a criteria by which one model can be considered "better" than another. But at it's root, we are testing hypotheses - "what we say about Nature" - by reference to whether observations either support or do not support a model constructed in thought.

A model, no matter how useful, is not "true."

When spiritual metaphor is taken for ontology rather than psychology, the discourse is doomed as well though.

 

[UnTheist]

indeed all evolution does is disprove creationism and evolution itself, while more probable is still a theory and full of holes. For all we know some God got the process started and simply allowed things to evolve on their own or maybe guided the evolution. Science may be able to disprove, or at least cast doubt on, different ideas and tenets of different religions but this in no way proves that there is no God anymore than casting doubt on or disproving a few ideas about genetics proves we have no DNA.

Science's goal was never to 'disprove God', since science is Naturalistic.

 

[UnTheist]

Atheism is not a faith. "There is no God" is based on the scientific evidence specifically for evolution etc

Yeah, Evolution doesn't disprove anything...

 

[Popeyesays]

Yeah, Evolution doesn't disprove anything...

If one accepts the fact that the Creation myth presented in Genesis i just that and nothing more.

Literalists get bit in the *** by their own arguments, no matter which side of the argument they are on.

Those who tout evolution as proof that religion is false are just "literalists", and they should be prepared to have tooth marks in their fannies.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Bohr said: "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature."

When you stop and think about the steps in the scientific method, this is actually rather obvious. Science gives us models for organizing our experience of reality and making predictions. Experimentation and repeatability allows us to fashion ever more "useful" models for prediction and helps develop a criteria by which one model can be considered "better" than another. But at it's root, we are testing hypotheses - "what we say about Nature" - by reference to whether observations either support or do not support a model constructed in thought.

A model, no matter how useful, is not "true."

When spiritual metaphor is taken for ontology rather than psychology, the discourse is doomed as well though.

I was quoting from memory from an interview in a book. No matter. The meaning is the same.

I'm listening to the Great Courses as I'm writing this. The professor is talking about and quoting from Augustine and what he says about faith. Jeez. Atheists in this thread haven't a clue.

 

[storm2020]

Wat i meant was i believe what science proves and am open to logical scientific theory. But believing in god has no basis in scientific evidence. If it was proven or even logical, then i would believe, but i still would not worship.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

believing in god has no basis in scientific evidence. If it was proven or even logical, then i would believe, but i still would not worship.

Objective evidence? No. Logical in light of scientific inquiry? Yes. Would you believe? Doubtful. The denial of God presumes something is known about him that is untenable. That is, it's self-contradicting faith. I forget who said it, but it's true: "The problem with atheism isn't disbelief in God, but wrong belief."

 

[doppelganger]

That is, it's self-contradicting faith. I forget who said it, but it's true: "The problem with atheism isn't disbelief in God, but wrong belief."

It is equally true to say, "The problem with Theism isn't belief in God, but wrong belief."

 

[storm2020]

Exactly doppleganger. wrong belief because it does not agree with yours? If there was testable evidence of a god yes i would believe, doubt me as much as you like. If a theist could give a decent argument for the existance of a god i probably would be open to it, but none has.

 

[doppelganger]

Exactly doppleganger. wrong belief because it does not agree with yours?

I enjoy the luxury of being neither a "theist" nor an "atheist" (or of being both, depending on how the questions are asked, but never just one or the other).

When "God" is thought of as a "thing" that has or doesn't have "existence," rather than a linguistic symbol associated with a personal assessment of subjective experience, the train is already off the tracks.

 

[Storm]

If there was testable evidence of a god yes i would believe, doubt me as much as you like.

For the sake of discussion, assume that the supernatural exists. How in the world could we test it? What evidence would satisfy you?

Just curious....

 

[doppelganger]

Hey, storm2020,

Can you do me a favor? Could you answer the questions I asked in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...s-naturalists-what-does-nature-represent.html

 

[doppelganger]

For the sake of discussion, assume that the supernatural exists.

Wouldn't it then be "the natural"?

 

[Storm]

Wouldn't it then be "the natural"?

I find "the supernatural" to be a nonsensical concept, if that's what you're asking. That's why I don't believe in it.