"I believe in science, I don't believe in God"

[RestlessSoul]

I have no idea how you go about "learning" metaphysics.

You could start with John Donne and Andrew Marvell.

 

[PureX]

Sure, but as a scientist they obliged to say "There is no ultimate reason for the universe"
Because there's nothing in science that will ever tell them there's a reason. That's outside of the
natural world.

Only the atheists say this. There are many scientists who are agnostic, or theists, that do not make such a claim.

As an aside, a scientist cannot say 'I believe in the Higs Boson', all he can say 'There is evidence
consistent for the Higs.' or 'There is evidence which supports the theory of atoms.'
Gets exceedingly tricky.

Wordy, perhaps, but not that complicated. I don't think scientists in general are making any false claims. I think non-scientists with an anti-religious ax to grind, do.

 

[PureX]

I have and you wont like the answer so i will not elucidate

... I will ...

Have you considered why Christians say "they know"?

Yes. It's because they confuse and conflate knowledge with belief, and then confuse and conflate belief with faith. So in the end they think faith = knowledge.

But it doesn't.

 

[ChristineM]

... I will ...
Yes. It's because they confuse and conflate knowledge with belief, and then confuse and conflate belief with faith. So in the end they think faith = knowledge.

But it doesn't.

Typical bullpoop woo, no more than expected.

Evidence = knowledge

Guesswork = faith.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

this fear of the god word is mostly just a foolish bias based on their loathing for religion, and their ignorance of philosophy.

I have no use for religion personally. Nor what you call philosophy, which is basically just a need for a god belief. Philosophy can extricate one from that. It did for me.

If atheists were not so intent on defending their atheism

Although we're happy to do it, we have no need to defend our atheism. I don't think you know what it is we believe. You continually mischaracterize it.

And we can also accept that those laws are the presence of "God" in the physical world.

I have no need to call the laws of physics "God," but it seems you do. I explained the pitfall there. One tends to add attributes such as consciousness to the laws of physics by calling them "God."

that desperate need to erase "God" from the realm of possibility.

As I said, very few theists ever get a handle on what it is that the philosophical atheist actually believes and claims. I am not aware of a single atheist who has a desperate need to erase "God" from the realm of possibility. A minority have erased gods from possibility, but not out of desperation. Desperation about what?

Since so many of you atheists are so intent on eliminating the idea of 'metaphysics' from the conversation, let's take a close look at what the term would actually mean.

Here you go again just inventing what atheists believe and do. Incidentally, when you use words like being intent or desperate, look in the mirror. Who's the one running around with his hair on fire in this thread, showing his frustration, contempt and disdain for those who have rejected what he considers meaningful, and actually upset that others have come to different conclusions? You don't see any of us posting with the emotion that you bring here, and you also don't see anybody who cares whether you agree with him or not. I don't. I won't be producing post after post expressing my frustration with your opinions because it just doesn't matter, and I am puzzled about why the opinions of atheists are so distracting to you.

Etymology
The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετα-), from μετά,[3] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.

Epistemology
In epistemology, and often in common use, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). In a database, metadata are also data about data stored in a data dictionary and describe information (data) about database tables such as the table name, table owner, details about columns, – essentially describing the table.

On higher level of abstraction
Any subject can be said to have a metatheory: a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction. In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).

Early use in English
The Oxford English Dictionary cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these formations are parallel to the original "metaphysics" and "metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began being used with specific nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929.

So, clearly, according to this info on wiki, the prefix, "meta" refers to an abstracted framework of understanding apart from, but adjacent to that which is being understood. In the case of gravity, for example; there is 'gravity' as a physical phenomenon, and there is 'gravity' as the cognitive experience/understanding of that phenomenon; i.e., a phenomenological abstraction existing apart from but adjacent to the physical phenomenon, itself. And although the former can exist without the latter, it's existence would be unrecognized, unrecognizable, and therefor of no possible value without the latter. To raise the physical phenomenon of gravity above the metaphysical recognition of the phenomenon in level of import and/of origin is logically incoherent, as the act of valuation itself is 'metaphysical'.

It is therefor an argument that negates it's own premise.

Did you have a point or an argument? What I see here is you calling meaning and ideas metaphysical, because meta means about. OK, but I don't see any value in that. In fact, I see it as counterproductive. It adds a layer of woo to simple thought, especially abstraction.

Somebody in this thread is arguing that love and justice are beyond the scope of science because they are abstract ideas, forgetting that unlike his god, they are abstracted from the experience of matter in motion. The word love refers to the countless examples of people committing resources such as their time to the betterment of the object of one's love. There's nothing mysterious about that, and it doesn't need to be steeped in woo.

You have decided in your own mind that the term "metaphysical" must and only refers to the "supernatural" because that's the straw man you can defeat.

Who setting up the straw man here? Who said those things? Who considers metaphysical and supernatural synonymous?

And as I have already mentioned, there's nothing needing defeating here for the atheist. You presented your position, and it didn't resonate with me (or anybody else as best I can tell), so I walk away from it unchanged.

. And I predict that even though I have just shown you otherwise, you will continue to ignore every word I've posted.

What do you think you have shown the thread? I see a frustrated guy criticizing the thinking of others, and no argument for why people should change their thinking to conform to his - what they're missing and how such thinking hurts them or how your beliefs help you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sure, but as a scientist they obliged to say "There is no ultimate reason for the universe"

No, scientists are not obliged to say that and shouldn't say that. The proper way for the skeptic to formulate that is that there is no known reason for the universe existing. That is different, and avoids the leap of faith need to go from "I don't see it" to "It doesn't exist."

But don't feel bad. I don't think that there are more than a small handful of theists on RF that accurately reproduce what it is that the philosophical atheist actually says and believes. In almost every instance of one describing atheists and atheism, they get it wrong.

That's fine. I don't need you to understand those things, but I also don't mind pointing out how few theists do.

Because there's nothing in science that will ever tell them there's a reason.

There's nothing anywhere that will reliably answer such questions. You are free to make up reasons such as that a god had plans for the universe and thus created it, but such answers aren't really answers at all. Substituting that God wanted it for we don't know adds nothing to we don't know.

Incidentally, even though I don't know if the universe was created for a purpose or just came into being under the influence of mindless forces and substances (or anything else), I am satisfied with that. I can't know, I don't need to know, and I am comfortable with that.

a scientist cannot say 'I believe in the Higs Boson', all he can say 'There is evidence consistent for the Higs.' or 'There is evidence which supports the theory of atoms.' Gets exceedingly tricky.

I make a distinction between believing and believing in, which implies faith-based belief, such as believing in reincarnation. By that reckoning, I believe much, but believe in nothing.

And by that reckoning, particle physicists also don't believe in the Higgs boson. They have justified belief that it exists, justified by the evidence to which you referred.

Have you considered why Christians say "they know"?

When talking about their faith-based beliefs, it's because they are encouraged to treat such beliefs as established truth. Doubt is considered a vice, and certitude a virtue. It's the opposite in secular humanist epistemology.

I'm saying that the wonder you feel at the universe is meaningless, an evolved brain function.

That's pretty much how I characterize the perception of god that theists report, and which they say is compelling evidence of a god - brain function, or psychological state, in which one projects mental content onto the universe and thinks he's experiencing something other than his own mind, mistake the ancients often made, as when they attributed their own creative impulses to muses whispering in their ears. They just didn't recognize the internal source of those ideas and seemed not to have a concept of human creativity, and so created external sources for those ideas.

Same with dreams. Rather than see them as the product of a sleeping brain, they were seen as significant messages sent in the night.

My OP was to point out that science becomes godlike for religious skeptics.

But you haven't done that. I have no gods, and I don't worship anything.

People who do often have trouble understanding that there are people who don't. They also have trouble understanding that worldviews aren't all religions, that it is possible to think without faith, or that it is possible to not believe in gods. We can see that when they tell us that we hate God or are trying to elude accountability to a god so that we can lead dissolute lives, or as you just did when turning something the secular humanist respects into something he worships. The theist simply does not understand the skeptic he criticizes any more than he understands the science he criticizes.

And interestingly, they often try to describe their faith-based thinking in the language of reason and evidence. Arguments for creationism are usually draped in the language of reason, but fallaciously, such as macroevolution has never been observed or it is mathematically virtually impossible for the elements of a living cell to self-organize. Isn't that interesting how the theist wants to wear the mantle of reason and evidence even as he is trying to fit us into his coat. What does that say about his implicit understanding of the two?

A theist posted this to me recently: "In my case, all ideas, scientific or else, in my actual set of knowledge are based solely on reason. I wish I have a blind faith about something, but I can't."

My answer: "I know you believe that, but I don't. One simply cannot come to a god belief using reason alone. There must be a leap of faith, at which point, it is no longer valid reasoning. It's my opinion that nobody can't get past that barrier even if he thinks he has."

Finally, I recently saw a quote to the effect that hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, which I think is an awkward way of pointing out that there are people that claim to have certain values or to engage in mental processes that they really don't value or engage in, but know that others do. If one is speaking only to like-minded, faith-based believers, he doesn't need to mention reason or evidence. It's enough to say that scripture tells us this or God spoke told me that as a source of a belief and expect that to be sufficient. But when dealing with skeptics that value reason over faith, one will argue in their language. It doesn't go unnoticed.

 

[Stevicus]

1) If no God is required, we must be evolutionists in thinking about the social sciences, too.

Well, I don't think I've heard it put that way before, but yes, I think our social systems, political systems, and overall cultures have evolved over time. I don't think God was required for that, as a good deal of human progress also came about through trial and error.

2) I cannot get better answers from atheists, therefore, then "we are social animals, like bees or ants are social (evolved) insects".

In a very real sense, this is true, although we do have more sophisticated means of communication, including the ability to read and write - which also evolved and developed on its own, with no evidence of any outside influence.

3) Humans aren't always so social--cannibal societies et al, I'm afraid skeptics only have "majority rules" and "must have evolved".

4) This underscores my OP.

Thanks.

I'm not sure what your last two points are referring to. However, I would agree that humans aren't always so social, although I'm not sure if cannibal societies were really that widespread. I suppose primitive societies back in the history of early humans could have been pretty harsh and cruel. "Social animals" doesn't necessarily mean "nice to each other."

I'm not sure which skeptics say "majority rules" or "must have evolved" or in what context. We can look at humans as a biological species and view the evolution of that species through that lens, although it's also fascinating to examine how humans evolved from a "state of nature" into the formation of the social contract and the basis of human civilization as told over the past several thousand years of human history. And that's not a very long period of history when compared to the hundreds of thousands of years humans have existed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You could start with John Donne and Andrew Marvell.

I was talking about learning as an academic topic -- and you refer me to poets. I have always been well aware of the emotional connection with metaphysical topics, but I do not suppose that reading poetry will provide me any data on the nature of metaphysical operation in the universe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I was talking about learning as an academic topic -- and you refer me to poets. I have always been well aware of the emotional connection with metaphysical topics, but I do not suppose that reading poetry will provide me any data on the nature of metaphysical operation in the universe.

No, poetry will not provide you with data. But man does not live by bread - or data - alone.

 

[Yazata]

... I will ...
Yes. It's because they confuse and conflate knowledge with belief, and then confuse and conflate belief with faith. So in the end they think faith = knowledge.

But it doesn't.

I think that I agree with that.

The way I see it, 'belief' is an intensional psychological state, with a proposition as its object, where one affirms the truth of the proposition. There's no need for the proposition to be true in real life, only that I trust and affirm (to myself as well as to others) that it is. (I might believe that 'London is the capital of France', even if in real life it isn't.)

I would say that propositional 'knowledge' is a subset of 'belief'. (It shouldn't be confused with 'knowledge how' like 'knowing how' to ride a bike.)

I tend to favor the ancient 'justified true belief' account of knowledge, where knowledge consists of beliefs that are in fact true and are satisfactorily justified. (Obvious philosophical problems arise here, since it can be argued that we have no way of directly intuiting truth, nor is it clear what a satisfactory justification is or when we have one and when we don't.)

The way it works is that my belief that 'Paris is the capital of France' qualifies as knowledge if Paris is indeed the capital of France and if I have a satisfactory reason to believe that it is. (As opposed to the truth of the proposition being a lucky guess.)

And 'faith' (as I would define it) is trust or confidence in beliefs that aren't suitably justified. We do that all the time, we couldn't live our lives any other way. I have faith every time I take a step that the law of gravity hasn't suddenly been repealed. I have faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow. I have faith that drivers out on the road will generally speaking behave as expected.

But seen this way, faith can't equate to knowledge since by definition 'faith' is belief in the absence of conclusive justification, while knowledge requires that justification.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, scientists are not obliged to say that and shouldn't say that. The proper way for the skeptic to formulate that is that there is no known reason for the universe existing. That is different, and avoids the leap of faith need to go from "I don't see it" to "It doesn't exist."

The 'universe' could have been formed by things which banged and crunched.
This banging and crunching therefor, IMO, is also a part of the universe. And
we are back to where we started.
SOMETHING or SOMEONE had to have directed the formation of the universe
as no natural processes were available - not even time, or the laws of physics -
n.o.t.h.i.n.g....
The Big Issue for me is the assumptions people make here:
1 - scientists have it figured out
2 - scientists one day will figure it out.

But science deals with the natural, physical world. Not things which predate or
exist outside of it. And something 'outside' of physics' created physics.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't believe in science so I don't believe in God.

I however just as a human conceptualize what God a planet meant as a holy presence in natural human health and life.

As a realist and not an indoctrinated scientist.

Reason a natural healthy non scientist human aware thinker existed first. Not a scientist. Chose to be a theist and destroyed life on planet earth.

Why science was originally preached as satanism.

Wanting to continue its practice they changed the concept satanism to the word of science.

Just humans lying as usual.

 

[ecco]

This banging and crunching therefor, IMO, is also a part of the universe. And
we are back to where we started.
SOMETHING or SOMEONE had to have directed the formation of the universe
as no natural processes were available - not even time, or the laws of physics -
n.o.t.h.i.n.g....

By "SOMETHING or SOMEONE" you mean your God. Who or what created your god?

Oh, right, your god is eternal. He/they have always existed - for all of eternity. So, your god sat on his tush for all of eternity minus 6000 years, then he finally created the heavens and the earth and man. All that time to use his omniscient brain to do one thing just right -- and he/they screwed it up so bad that he/they had to destroy it (almost) all and start over.

The Big Issue for me is the assumptions people make here:
1 - scientists have it figured out
2 - scientists one day will figure it out.

Which people make the assumption that "scientists have it figured out"? Is that just another strawman you have to make up to pretend you are superior?

But science deals with the natural, physical world. Not things which predate or exist outside of it. And something 'outside' of physics' created physics.

By "things which predate or exist outside of it" you mean your God. Who or what created your god?

Oh, right, your god is eternal. He/they have always existed - for all of eternity. So, your god sat on his tush for all of eternity minus 6000 years, then he finally created the heavens and the earth and man. All that time to use his omniscient brain to do one thing just right -- and he/they screwed it up so bad that he/they had to destroy it (almost) all and start over.

 

[PruePhillip]

By "SOMETHING or SOMEONE" you mean your God. Who or what created your god?

Oh, right, your god is eternal. He/they have always existed - for all of eternity. So, your god sat on his tush for all of eternity minus 6000 years, then he finally created the heavens and the earth and man. All that time to use his omniscient brain to do one thing just right -- and he/they screwed it up so bad that he/they had to destroy it (almost) all and start over.




Which people make the assumption that "scientists have it figured out"? Is that just another strawman you have to make up to pretend you are superior?




By "things which predate or exist outside of it" you mean your God. Who or what created your god?

Oh, right, your god is eternal. He/they have always existed - for all of eternity. So, your god sat on his tush for all of eternity minus 6000 years, then he finally created the heavens and the earth and man. All that time to use his omniscient brain to do one thing just right -- and he/they screwed it up so bad that he/they had to destroy it (almost) all and start over.

Calm down Ecco. It's just a thread.
The 'argument' goes, 'If God created the universe, who created God' is offered up as a clever point.
But it's not because we cannot comprehend anything 'outside' of the natural world. How can we think
of 'something' when there's no time, no space and not even mathematics? So asking 'who created God'
isn't the same argument as 'Who created the natural world.'

If we are talking about the Judea Christian God then the first creation account in Genesis 1 gives a
good sequence of events, if you filter out the repetitions, manner of writing and theological symbolism
of the six days, ie God created then heavens and then the earth. And you are now an observer upon
this earth - it is dark, sterile and oceanic. Then the skies clear, the continents rise, life appears on
earth first and then in the oceans. Finally man.

 

[wellwisher]

The scientific method was designed to investigate physical reality from outside ourselves. This approach reaches consensus by allowing others to verify the data through common sensory observations. We can all see and experience external things the same way in they are tangible. This is why science tries to peg God as something outside and connected to sensory input.

The scientific method does not work as well with things inside the person. The main reason is we do not have the sensory ability to read each others mind. The phenomena of the mind and brain are just as real but they are not as verifiable by others. This is often called subjective even if objective at some internal level .

For example, dreams, which are common to most people and many religions, are real output affects from the brain. However, specific dreams cannot be group verified like a tree, which can be seen by all. Faith builds a bridge. The science layman may never have witnessed a verifying experiment, but will bridge the gap through faith in the prestige of science.

Say you were a scientists who did experiments on your own consciousness and recorded the brain response from the inside. This could be science by the book but it may fail the philosophy of science since others cannot go where you may have gone. One is at a crossroads between internal science and external faith. The religious leaders had real experiences that were internal science that changed their nature, however since others cannot see this it became bridge by faith in parallel experience that were real to them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What do you mean?

Science says I don't know. Christians say they know (god gave answers via scriptures). Simple statements.

Could you tell me what you mean?

Christians say they know because of life changes, fulfilled prophecies, and miracles/healings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All that can be said and is said in science is there is no evidence of God or gods or the requirement of God or gods.

We are social animals. Bees and ants are social. The evidence supports that they evolved just as the evidence supports our own evolution. This does not negate God.

Skeptics have questions and they question claims. Especially empty claims. Anti-social acts do not refute the fact that we are a social species. The fact that we are social lets us see and contrast such anti-social behavior.

I get the impression that you feel threatened by things like science and skeptics. They do not bother me. The fact that what I know does not align with literal interpretations of the Bible has not caused me to cast aside God or science.

You "got the impression I feel threatened by science" because I wrote "I've always used the hypothesis method to test the Bible?"

Because I wrote a popular thread on scientism and atheism?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, I don't think I've heard it put that way before, but yes, I think our social systems, political systems, and overall cultures have evolved over time. I don't think God was required for that, as a good deal of human progress also came about through trial and error.



In a very real sense, this is true, although we do have more sophisticated means of communication, including the ability to read and write - which also evolved and developed on its own, with no evidence of any outside influence.



I'm not sure what your last two points are referring to. However, I would agree that humans aren't always so social, although I'm not sure if cannibal societies were really that widespread. I suppose primitive societies back in the history of early humans could have been pretty harsh and cruel. "Social animals" doesn't necessarily mean "nice to each other."

I'm not sure which skeptics say "majority rules" or "must have evolved" or in what context. We can look at humans as a biological species and view the evolution of that species through that lens, although it's also fascinating to examine how humans evolved from a "state of nature" into the formation of the social contract and the basis of human civilization as told over the past several thousand years of human history. And that's not a very long period of history when compared to the hundreds of thousands of years humans have existed.

If the majority of humans turned to cannibalism and paedophilia, how would skeptics need to understand what had happened from a secular, evolutionary perspective? They'd have to retcon evolution to say what the majority ruled was the will of determinist factors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no use for religion personally. Nor what you call philosophy, which is basically just a need for a god belief. Philosophy can extricate one from that. It did for me.



Although we're happy to do it, we have no need to defend our atheism. I don't think you know what it is we believe. You continually mischaracterize it.



I have no need to call the laws of physics "God," but it seems you do. I explained the pitfall there. One tends to add attributes such as consciousness to the laws of physics by calling them "God."



As I said, very few theists ever get a handle on what it is that the philosophical atheist actually believes and claims. I am not aware of a single atheist who has a desperate need to erase "God" from the realm of possibility. A minority have erased gods from possibility, but not out of desperation. Desperation about what?



Here you go again just inventing what atheists believe and do. Incidentally, when you use words like being intent or desperate, look in the mirror. Who's the one running around with his hair on fire in this thread, showing his frustration, contempt and disdain for those who have rejected what he considers meaningful, and actually upset that others have come to different conclusions? You don't see any of us posting with the emotion that you bring here, and you also don't see anybody who cares whether you agree with him or not. I don't. I won't be producing post after post expressing my frustration with your opinions because it just doesn't matter, and I am puzzled about why the opinions of atheists are so distracting to you.



Did you have a point or an argument? What I see here is you calling meaning and ideas metaphysical, because meta means about. OK, but I don't see any value in that. In fact, I see it as counterproductive. It adds a layer of woo to simple thought, especially abstraction.

Somebody in this thread is arguing that love and justice are beyond the scope of science because they are abstract ideas, forgetting that unlike his god, they are abstracted from the experience of matter in motion. The word love refers to the countless examples of people committing resources such as their time to the betterment of the object of one's love. There's nothing mysterious about that, and it doesn't need to be steeped in woo.



Who setting up the straw man here? Who said those things? Who considers metaphysical and supernatural synonymous?

And as I have already mentioned, there's nothing needing defeating here for the atheist. You presented your position, and it didn't resonate with me (or anybody else as best I can tell), so I walk away from it unchanged.



What do you think you have shown the thread? I see a frustrated guy criticizing the thinking of others, and no argument for why people should change their thinking to conform to his - what they're missing and how such thinking hurts them or how your beliefs help you.

As a theist, I have far more trouble understanding other theists than I do atheists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If the majority of humans turned to cannibalism and paedophilia, how would skeptics need to understand what had happened from a secular, evolutionary perspective? They'd have to retcon evolution to say what the majority ruled was the will of determinist factors.

Since those claiming theism outnumber those claiming atheism, wouldn't the cannibalistic theists eat all of the atheists before they had a chance to search for evidence to draw conclusions from?

I wonder why you chose those two particular antisocial conditions in association with a scientific theory that makes you uncomfortable in a question to skeptics. Are you trying to establish an association in some backhanded, unevidenced way?