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

[Jeremiah Ames]

All religions are man made and it's not exactly pertinent. When people commit atrocities in the name of a religion or a political ideology for that matter, they don't believe they are causing untold suffering. They believe they are righteous and that the pain they cause the the death they sow is smaller than the good they make by those same action. You see an innocent woman burning on a pyre, they see a monster who can only be stopped from hurting others by her death. Of course, from a rational point of view, you are correct and they are not, but they will not accept this, not only because it goes against a cherish belief, but also because it would wreck their self esteem.

precisely, ALL religions ARE man made

but do the followers think that?

 

[epronovost]

In the other hand I am not aware of any falsifiable argument for atheism .are you?

Since atheism is the rejection of a position or a position of doubt about a god claim, it doesn't have positive arguments that need to be falsified. Though there are a few arguments that rest upon evidence of absence like Epicurus Problem of Evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, the paradox of omnipotence, the problem of divine providence, etc. that provide arguments against some particular version of god.

 

[epronovost]

precisely, ALL religions ARE man made

but do the followers think that?

Yes, and no. The overwhelming majority of believers believe that their religion was made and predicated by men, but inspired by god(s) thus true. Few actually believe their holy books and holy figures are divine or written by divine people.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think it is unfortunate that many in our society look at belief in science and belief in God as contradictory things.

And I think in the 21st century the word 'God' needs to be given a broader definition in colloquial use. In previous centuries the word 'God' was equated with the father figure God of the Bible. Today, many believers think more broadly.

They may think more broadly -- but do you ever see them try to communicate those broader insights with the rest of us? I don't.

 

[Polymath257]

I can see why some feel that way, I used to feel that way, too.

The concept that science has all the answers has been growing in the secular world.

Who says that? Every scientist I know acknowledges that science has no say in aesthetics, or justice, or even morality. it can *inform* those subjects, of course, but it cannot decide or judge those subjects.

Science is based on the scientific method, a process by which truth is discovered, including objective observation, testing, hypotheses, etc. To those who boast in the scientific method, I say, "Big deal. I've never known anyone who didn't."

Science is invaluable and helps us measure and quantify physical matter and energy.

It helps us organize how we think about things: requiring evidence and testing our ideas. That is valuable even for those who believe in a supernatural: see which ideas about the sueprnatural lead to observable conclusions that can be tested.

But I can't order three pounds of justice at the grocery store or a half-gallon of love and righteousness at the gas station.

And you would have equal difficulty getting a half a gallon of light, even though light is considered to be material (physical).

On the other hand, the feelings of justice, love, and righteousness are *emotions* that are mediated by the brain. As such, they are ultimately physical processes. At least, that is what those who subscribe to 'materialism' (I prefer physicalism) actually believe.

When a person believes the physical, the material, is all that exists, I contend they lose their soul. I'm not referring to their eternal soul, even though that is obviously forfeited as well. I'm referring to their soul now, that which makes them human and separates them from mere animals. The soul is that part of us that stands in awe of a starry night or the ocean waves, that is moved by beautiful art or music, and that is inspired by selfless courage or loving self-sacrifice.

And if you look around, those scientists usually go into science because they are moved by the stars and the ocean waves, the crave the beauty of the world around us. Most also appreciate art and music and respect courage to stand up to injustice and oppression. They also fight hard against ignorance.

The 'soul' you refer to is a universal *human* characteristic. It exists in atheists and theists alike.

I thank God for awakening my soul, redeeming and restoring it. Per the Bible, anyone who trusts Jesus has eternal life--and a soul that is alive and well.

if it works for you and you don't shove it down the throats of others, there is no issue, right?

 

[George-ananda]

They may think more broadly -- but do you ever see them try to communicate those broader insights with the rest of us? I don't.

We love to express our thoughts to everyone like on Religious Forums. The information out there is endless.

Open-minded interest from the other side is required too. If what atheists want is to get fired-up against bad conservative religions they can get that too.

 

[leroy]

you want falsifiable evidence for lacking belief in god?

AND you want to be taken seriously?

I am asking for a falsifiable argument against the existence of god.

 

[leroy]

Since atheism is the rejection of a position or a position of doubt about a god claim, it doesn't have positive arguments that need to be falsified. Though there are a few arguments that rest upon evidence of absence like Epicurus Problem of Evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, the paradox of omnipotence, the problem of divine providence, etc. that provide arguments against some particular version of god.

But none of those arguments is "scientific"

 

[PruePhillip]

Neither do religions. What they have are beliefs and speculations. Ten religions, fifty beliefs and speculations.
Scientifically speaking, you are here because your father schtupped your mother. See, science does have answers even if you think otherwise.

You might disbelieve the religious answer - but still you must admit that when a scientist
says "There is no reason for our being" that he is speaking as an individual, hoping to
promote his POV by saying he is a 'scientist.' (ie a microbiologist, a geologist, a zoologist
or astronomer --- hardly areas of study of the meaning of life.)

 

[PruePhillip]

I think there absolutely is an overlap. And that the spirit of scientific endeavour is akin to the spirit of both philosophical and religious endeavour.

Steven Gould called this the 'non overlapping magisteria'

 

[epronovost]

But none of those arguments is "scientific"

No, so what?

Atheism doesn't need to be "scientific" nor is it scientific. At its core, its skeptical and rationalist, not "scientific" and these arguments are in those category.

Of course you could have arguments that are based on scientific discovery for example, lightnings aren't the javelins of Zeus but caused by static discharges caused by air particles in storm clouds. You could make similar arguments for creator deities who fashioned animals out of clay and animated them with some golem spells since that's not how animal came to be. Though these arguments don't address "clockmaker" deities, but more the very "human" deities of mythology.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, evidence should be what now? Falsifiable?

Yes thats what i said.

It makes all the difference

 

[ChristineM]

excellent point.

it is possible those studies are being done.

i have heard some psychologists speak about what they were seeing when treating schizophrenia. is it possible that schizophrenia is caused by a close connection between the spirit world and the suffering individual?

also, study of indigenous peoples has revealed a close connection to the spiritual. these people did not live in a hyper materialistic world like we do.

perhaps modern humans have too much connection to materialism?

perhaps most scientific study is done to enhance the material experience?

that’s where the money is.

My brother on law has schizophrenia so i am involved in it on a daily basis.

And certainly in his case there is no spirit world involved. It is a physical mental abnormal brain function. If people want to call electrochemical processes spirt then i suggest they are doing nothing to help those with brain disorders but are intent on trying to make a name for themselves in new age circles.

Connection/belief, if it eases the mind, makes living easier then whats the problem. It in no way proves a spirit or a god, just a belief.

Scientific study is done to learn. And improve your life. I have never heard of a sciencist becoming wealthy from working in science. There there are of course a few who diversity and preach science and get paid for that. Oh wait, there are religious people who do that too on their subject m

 

[RestlessSoul]

That's a bit of a strawman there. Religion and theology have never produced anything that it initially set out to do and provide. It didn't provide any sort of accurate information on the nature of the the world nor did it provide definitive answers to existential questions of the human condition like why do we suffer; why are we there; what's the purpose of life, etc. Religion is basically complex systems of superstitions, myths, rituals, folk tradition and a institution with a more or less complex and influential power structure. It did produce a lot memes (in the scientific sense of the term).

Depends what you think religion, theology, and for that matter mythology, set out to do in the first place. I’m not sure it’s primary purpose was ever to provide literal definitive answers to material questions.

I think it’s first purpose was rather to fulfil a spiritual need. Whether or not one believes in the existence of spirit is immaterial here; religion, for it’s adherents, refreshes the parts other philosophies cannot reach )to paraphrase an old Heineken ad).

Even if we accept your definition of religion, I would contend that myths, rituals and folk traditions have meaning and purpose.

Not all truths are literal - what we may call poetic truths are often no less profound than scientific truths (though imo these do overlap).

To religious people, the things of enduring value are not things of this world - where moth and rust corrupt, and thieves break through and steal.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am asking for a falsifiable argument against the existence of god.

"Falsifiable" "against?" You want "proof by double negative?"

 

[ChristineM]

The arguments typically provided for the existence of God are usually testable and falsifiable

For example the Kalam cosmological Argument argument can be falsified is any of the 2 premises is proven wrong.

I am not sure how often you have been shown how often the Kalam cosmological Argument argument has been shown to be debunked and i am equally unsure how many times you have ignored that.

In the other hand I am not aware of any falsifiable argument for atheism .are you?

Does atheism make any claims othere than there is no evidence of a gods existence. All you need to do to falsify atheism us provide valid evidence of any god existing... I'll wait

 

[RestlessSoul]

"Falsifiable" "against?" You want "proof by double negative?"

I would respectfully suggest that when demands are made for evidence to be 'falsifiable', we are already in the realm of semantics and paradox.

 

[ChristineM]

I would respectfully suggest that when demands are made for evidence to be 'falsifiable', we are already in the realm of semantics and paradox.

I would respectfully suggest thats how science works, unless it is possible to show the evidence can be incorrect then all you have is wishful thinking

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would respectfully suggest that when demands are made for evidence to be 'falsifiable', we are already in the realm of semantics and paradox.

As usual, with matters of science, you are incorrect because that's not what "falsifiable" means. Falsifiable refers to the proof, not the evidence. The evidence is the evidence, and if some evidence turns about that falsifies the theory or hypothesis being tested, then the theory or hypothesis is proven false -- at least as stated. It might regain credibility by being tweaked, for example.

Thus, Einstein's Relativity predicted that large gravitational fields would act as a "lens," bending light towards the centre of the gravitational source. So an experiment was set up in several places around the world in 1919 to see if -- during a total solar eclipse -- the light from a distant star would be bent, and thus appear out of its expected position. If the star appeared exactly where it was supposed to be, then Einstein would be forced to go back and re-work his theory, because it would have been falsified by this new evidence. As it turned out, the star did appear shifted, just as the theory predicted. So the theory -- while not "proven true in every instance" still holds.

By the way, classical phsyics also predicts the bending of light around a gravitational source, so one would say that this also "proves" classical physics. However, classical physics predicts that the amount of bending would be only half that which Relativity predicts -- and Relativity got it right. This does not mean that classical physics is wrong and discardable -- not even close -- it's just not complete in terms of immense masses or speeds. Classical physics is still all you need to land a spaceship on Mars.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Is proof of the Many Worlds QM theory falsifiable?