Does science support Atheism, positively?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Gods are, by many definitions, existent outside of the natural world. So it's no surprise to not find it or them within the natural world using a method to explore the natural world.

For this not to be a surprise, gods would not only have to be outside the natural world but also have no effects on the natural world. I'm sure how you can appreciate how this would violate the tenets of most religions.

 

[Milton Platt]

God might also be ''natural''

which begs the question, Why is it?

There does not have to be a why.



no it doesn't

rubbish

What is rubbish? That things are not self evident or that empirical evidence is needed to establish the existence is things?

So God is proved then!

I fail to see any connection at all. Gods are not self evident. And you cannot gather empirical evidence on something that does not exist in the natural world. There is no way to point to any thing, any phenomenon, or any experience and then provide evidence linking a god to the thing, phenomenon or experience. The best you can do is an argument from ignorance. In other words " I can' t (or won't try to) think of any other possible cause, therefore, god.

clearly. Does that mean there is no God? No! It might mean an atheist is ignorant, and in fact, does.

Atheists have generally heard all the apologetic Rguments there are many times over and found the evidence presented totally insufficient to support such a claim as supernatural beings creating universes. That does not constitute ignorance, it constitutes reasoned thought.

why can it?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No... just a conspicuous absence.

Science's response to god-claims isn't some "there is no god" smoking gun; it's Laplace's response ("I have no need for that hypothesis") repeated countless times.

Are you countering my post or simply agreeing with it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you countering my post or simply agreeing with it?

A bit of both. I'm saying that science may not say that gods don't exist, but it does say that gods are irrelevant, which is close enough for most purposes and is incompatible with most forms of theism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A bit of both. I'm saying that science may not say that gods don't exist, but it does say that gods are irrelevant, which is close enough for most purposes and is incompatible with most forms of theism.

That I can agree with. What I stated was that science doesn't state god doesn't exist. However it doesn't say anything at all about god. The basis for god and the concepts and beliefs in god are totally irrelevant to science and by extension would be "atheistic" in the degree that it lacks any sort of support for a concept that is presented without evidence.

 

[methylatedghosts]

For this not to be a surprise, gods would not only have to be outside the natural world but also have no effects on the natural world. I'm sure how you can appreciate how this would violate the tenets of most religions.

Indeed, yes.

Unless, of course, there's some kind of mechanism in place for a supra-natural existence to have an effect that hadn't yet been discovered. Don't imagine it is likely to be discovered with the tools we have, at least until we create something physical that can interact somehow with the non-physical.

What if, for example, the universe is the physical expression of God? Not sure it'd be possible to detect that, because of the non-physicality of the rest of God. So science ignores that, simply because that is outside of it's area of concern. Philosophy might be better equipped to take that on.

I guess what I mean is that these two are mostly separate areas of study in the same way that biology is separate from music is separate from politics, and so have little to say about the other. I wouldn't ask a priest about astrophysics, and I wouldn't ask a chemist about Jesus's teachings

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed, yes.

Unless, of course, there's some kind of mechanism in place for a supra-natural existence to have an effect that hadn't yet been discovered. Don't imagine it is likely to be discovered with the tools we have, at least until we create something physical that can interact somehow with the non-physical.

What if, for example, the universe is the physical expression of God? Not sure it'd be possible to detect that, because of the non-physicality of the rest of God. So science ignores that, simply because that is outside of it's area of concern. Philosophy might be better equipped to take that on.

Even before we let the philosophers take it on, I think it's worthwhile asking you what you mean.

If something expresses itself physically, in what way is that thing "non-physical"? In the sciences, all "physical" means is something like "interacts with matter and energy", which you're saying this hypothetical god does.

The way you've phrased your hypothetical, we're getting into Invisible Pink Unicorn territory.

I guess what I mean is that these two are mostly separate areas of study in the same way that biology is separate from music is separate from politics, and so have little to say about the other. I wouldn't ask a priest about astrophysics, and I wouldn't ask a chemist about Jesus's teachings

An ethicist would be able to talk intelligently about whether Jesus' teachings are moral, but I don't think that the ethicist - or a theologian, for that matter - is any better equipped than the chemist to determine whether Jesus really did teach them.

It sounds like you're arguing for Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria"; this idea doesn't work. I haven't found a religion on the planet that doesn't make claims within the sphere of science.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yeah, why not. I was about to write "he" , but then thought "hey, most people would write that, too, but scientists can be women!" My little way of challenging the assuming way a lot of us speak. I like to be inclusive, y'know. Sexism ain't cool.

And yet you have just been sexist.
If you are female I can see why there would be genda-bias, but if male, it seems like pandering to me, like someone without a backbone.
Most scientists are male, so why say she? And for your information, it is a common thing found in books that many male writers use now and annoys the hell out of me.

Why do it?

It is invert sexism. Perhaps you think they need a help?

 

[Robert.Evans]

...

No it shows ignorance through blindness. And atheists have not heard all the arguments. But they have heard the ones that suit them and allow them to have their own faith reliant on luck!

 

[Robert.Evans]

A bit of both. I'm saying that science may not say that gods don't exist, but it does say that gods are irrelevant, which is close enough for most purposes and is incompatible with most forms of theism.

Only irrelevant as they keep their minds firmly fixed in the corporeal universe, and therefore limit their thinking/.

 

[methylatedghosts]

And yet you have just been sexist.
If you are female I can see why there would be genda-bias, but if male, it seems like pandering to me, like someone without a backbone.
Most scientists are male, so why say she? And for your information, it is a common thing found in books that many male writers use now and annoys the hell out of me.

Why do it?

It is invert sexism. Perhaps you think they need a help?

why NOT do it? Was there something wrong with it, other than "annoying you"? I ain't here to project your feelings, buddy!

 

[methylatedghosts]

Even before we let the philosophers take it on, I think it's worthwhile asking you what you mean.

If something expresses itself physically, in what way is that thing "non-physical"? In the sciences, all "physical" means is something like "interacts with matter and energy", which you're saying this hypothetical god does.

The way you've phrased your hypothetical, we're getting into Invisible Pink Unicorn territory.


An ethicist would be able to talk intelligently about whether Jesus' teachings are moral, but I don't think that the ethicist - or a theologian, for that matter - is any better equipped than the chemist to determine whether Jesus really did teach them.

It sounds like you're arguing for Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria"; this idea doesn't work. I haven't found a religion on the planet that doesn't make claims within the sphere of science.

No idea about who Gould is, or what this person said. But I did say that theism and science are MOSTLY separate. Sure, that'll be some overlap somewhere, just like politics and music may overlap, too.

All i'm saying is that God, whether or not he or she or it exists, is not a concern of science. What does God's existence or non-existence matter when working out how to live on mars? Do the results of studies working on mutation rates of bacteria change when God exists or doesn't?

 

[paarsurrey]

science and gods are two subjects that don't really have much to say about each other. A scientist is a scientist, whether she believes in God or not

They a scientist should mind his business of science and should not speak about G-d negatively.
Regards

 

[Robert.Evans]

why NOT do it? Was there something wrong with it, other than "annoying you"? I ain't here to project your feelings, buddy!

But why do it? Why bother? If you are a man, you would see it from a man's perspective. You are trying to please women? Or do you think you are better than someone else because you put them first? It seems like creeping to me...flavour of the month it seems.
Why did you not mention tha tthe scientist was black, disabled???

 

[Robert.Evans]

No idea about who Gould is, or what this person said. But I did say that theism and science are MOSTLY separate. Sure, that'll be some overlap somewhere, just like politics and music may overlap, too.

All i'm saying is that God, whether or not he or she or it exists, is not a concern of science. What does God's existence or non-existence matter when working out how to live on mars? Do the results of studies working on mutation rates of bacteria change when God exists or doesn't?

If they knew a little they would know why we sent 12 men to the moon, so it might help to understand a little.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No idea about who Gould is, or what this person said.

Stephen Jay Gould. Late biologist. Wrote a huge amount for lay audiences, did a lot of work on punctuated equilibria in evolution. He's definitely worth checking out - most of his stuff is awesome.

... one of his ideas that I'm not a fan of, though, is "non-overlapping magisteria": the idea that "proper" science doesn't speak to "proper" religion and vice versa.

But I did say that theism and science are MOSTLY separate. Sure, that'll be some overlap somewhere, just like politics and music may overlap, too.

They do very little but overlap, IMO. Every religion I've ever encountered is chock-full of claims about the physical universe.

All i'm saying is that God, whether or not he or she or it exists, is not a concern of science. What does God's existence or non-existence matter when working out how to live on mars? Do the results of studies working on mutation rates of bacteria change when God exists or doesn't?

At the very least, the existence of God would be within the scope of ecology (does this type of mysterious creature - purported to be represented by only one individual - exist?). We don't ask what the existence of coelacanths would "matter" when we tried to figure out if they were extinct or not.

And if this God is purported to be responsible for real physical phenomena, then it's very much a question was caused by God or something else.

The sort of God that isn't a concern of science is the sort of God that nobody actually believes in.

 

[methylatedghosts]

But why do it? Why bother? If you are a man, you would see it from a man's perspective. You are trying to please women? Or do you think you are better than someone else because you put them first? It seems like creeping to me...flavour of the month it seems.
Why did you not mention tha tthe scientist was black, disabled???

Omg. So I used a feminine pronoun where most might use a male. They're both correct. Get over it, get used to the idea that one is equally legitimate as the other.

Also a little perturbed that you presume to tell me what prospective I "should" have. I've got one all of my own, thanks very much. And I certainly don't need one from someone who seems to take exception to the word "she"

 

[methylatedghosts]

Stephen Jay Gould. Late biologist. Wrote a huge amount for lay audiences, did a lot of work on punctuated equilibria in evolution. He's definitely worth checking out - most of his stuff is awesome.

... one of his ideas that I'm not a fan of, though, is "non-overlapping magisteria": the idea that "proper" science doesn't speak to "proper" religion and vice versa.


They do very little but overlap, IMO. Every religion I've ever encountered is chock-full of claims about the physical universe.


At the very least, the existence of God would be within the scope of ecology (does this type of mysterious creature - purported to be represented by only one individual - exist?). We don't ask what the existence of coelacanths would "matter" when we tried to figure out if they were extinct or not.

And if this God is purported to be responsible for real physical phenomena, then it's very much a question was caused by God or something else.

The sort of God that isn't a concern of science is the sort of God that nobody actually believes in.

You're right - religions do have a lot to say about it, but a belief in God, by itself, does not. The issue, I think, is the associated beliefs that can come alongside, not theism alone. To say "I believe God exists" says just that, no more or less. But "i'm Christian" means a belief in God, plus all the other things. Do you see what I mean? God could mean almost anything

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If yes; does any text book of science or any peer reviewed Journal of science mention it for its claims and reasons?

The opposite I'd argue

science showed the universe began in a creation event, not a static, steady state as atheism predicted

it showed that physical reality operates on underlying mysterious unpredictable forces along with specific instructions on how to organize matter, not a simple set of immutable laws as atheism predicted

It showed that life appeared in sudden pronounced stages, not smooth continual transitions as atheism predicted

And that it's origins are still inexplicable by any natural mechanism

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're right - religions do have a lot to say about it, but a belief in God, by itself, does not. The issue, I think, is the associated beliefs that can come alongside, not theism alone. To say "I believe God exists" says just that, no more or less. But "i'm Christian" means a belief in God, plus all the other things. Do you see what I mean? God could mean almost anything

But no theist believes in this generic, blank, attributeless god. Every god that anyone believes in is a specific god with some specific set of attributes.