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

[Jeremiah Ames]

True, they blamed spirits and science filled yet another gap in knowledge that was filled with religion and woo

you have some interesting insight

i would like to ask you a question

do you only acknowledge that which you can see or touch? (Or smell, taste, or hear)

just wondering

 

[osgart]

Yes, but there is no reason to believe the Bible.



Only if a spirit world exists. I see no evidence for spirits.



Maybe, but that would be a poverty of self-development.

Personally, there's nothing material that I want apart from other human beings and animals, a solid surface to stand on, a survivable environment including food, water, and oxygen, a variety of amenities like a computer, television, and telephone, a car, assorted restaurants and other enjoyable places to visit, and the means to ensure a steady supply of all of these as much as possible. Since I have all of that, there is nothing else I want. My wife is always asking me what I want her to order from Amazon. The answer is usually nothing. Recently, it was more tube socks.

Another myth of the faithful - only they have proper priorities and values. How many see us as lifeless automatons with no inner life at all? This is typical.

View attachment 51448

Look at that. We have no experience, like a Roomba wandering the room bumping into furniture "measuring." Look at the implication that only his kind has authentic experience. LOL. We just laugh at these arrogant, self-important phonies.



Falsifiability doesn't apply to evidence. It refers to some types of existential claims. Evidence is never false (or true). It's simply whatever is evident. Statements about its significance might be demonstrably false.



I think you overestimate humanity. Atheism is an evolved human concept. It isn't for everybody, and not everybody is properly prepared for it. It's easier to believe in a god than not.

Being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, nobody watching over you or answering your prayers, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence.

To the theist I say, try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, that you may be vulnerable and not watched over. Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finitude, of consciousness ending with death, of maybe not seeing the departed again. Accept the reality of your likely insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by those who know you - people, and maybe a few animals. Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

And that is much more difficult than the alternative, which is why so many more fit into the religious category. Widespread religious belief is not an argument for theism. Nor is widespread illiteracy an argument for being illiterate.



I find many religious precept immoral.



Atheism isn't an argument. It makes no claims about reality. Therefore, there is nothing to falsify.

I'm still seeking the theist that knows what atheism is and what atheists believe and advocate.



Why? We just reject the claim for lack of evidence and move on from religion and theism. You'll have to proceed without one.

I can provide a proof that the god of the Christian Bible doesn't exist, but I won't. I'm not trying to convince you or any other Christian that that god doesn't exist. All I want out of believer is that they agree that their religion should be confined to them. If I have that, I'm not interested in their religious beliefs. Really. If people want to stand under the midnight moon dancing around a pole in the nude while shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed to it, go for it.

But if you're my neighbor, please do so quietly.

I was thinking of religion in general. Not all religions are immoral. I can only think of two fundamentalist religions I would consider immoral. The eternal doom religions for non belief, the anti gay religions, ones that seek God's vengeance, ones where God destroys people, ones that condone violence in the name of God, ones that make enemies of non believers are all immoral.

To me religious opposition isn't necessarily immoral, but just decent people blinded to reality.

 

[ChristineM]

you have some interesting insight

i would like to ask you a question

do you only acknowledge that which you can see or touch? (Or smell, taste, or hear)

just wondering

That which can be weighed or measured, so i suppose that includes smell, taste and hearing. More specifically, reality, that which physically exists. Provide evidence of existence then i will consider it.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That which can be weighed or measured, so i suppose that includes smell, taste and hearing. More specifically, reality, that which physically exists. Provide evidence of existence then i will consider it.

ok

so what do you mean by weighed or measured?

i’m not quite sure

does it have to be physically measured as to size like length and volume
and weighed with a scale?

aren’t there things that you acknowledge exist, but cannot be weighed or measured that way?

 

[Polymath257]

ok

so what do you mean by weighed or measured?

i’m not quite sure

does it have to be physically measured as to size like length and volume
and weighed with a scale?

aren’t there things that you acknowledge exist, but cannot be weighed or measured that way?

So, for example, we can measure the mass of a proton, and the charge of an electron. We don't measure the mass of a proton on a scale. But we can still measure it.

In general, we use interactions with known physical things to measure the properties of unknown physical things. That is what allowed us to detect and measure radio waves, which we cannot see and ultrasound, which we cannot hear. But radio and ultrasound are still physical effects.

There is nothing that I know of that does not ultimately supervene on the physical.

 

[Polymath257]

you have some interesting insight

i would like to ask you a question

do you only acknowledge that which you can see or touch? (Or smell, taste, or hear)

just wondering

I'll answer for myself. There are a great number of things I cannot directly detect with my senses, but which I can still detect through their interactions with things I can see, feel, hear, smell, etc.

So, I cannot directly see radio waves. But I can detect them easily with certain physical devices tuned to detect radio waves. I cannot directly detect electrons, but there are other physical devices that allow me to detect and measure the properties of electrons.

The list continues, of course, and is quite long: DNA, atoms, molecules, bacteria, x-rays, other galaxies, etc. ALL are undetectable to me without some sort of help. And we have numerous devices that extend our abilities to detect things in various ways.

But, somehow, there isn't a way to do so with the supernatural. No device consistently allows the detection and measurement of the supernatural. Nothing we have ever made allows our senses to be extended to detect what so many people claim exists. And yet, we detect other things, often by surprise, with new devices all the time.

Why is that?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

ok

so what do you mean by weighed or measured?

i’m not quite sure

does it have to be physically measured as to size like length and volume
and weighed with a scale?

aren’t there things that you acknowledge exist, but cannot be weighed or measured that way?

So, for example, we can measure the mass of a proton, and the charge of an electron. We don't measure the mass of a proton on a scale. But we can still measure it.

In general, we use interactions with known physical things to measure the properties of unknown physical things. That is what allowed us to detect and measure radio waves, which we cannot see and ultrasound, which we cannot hear. But radio and ultrasound are still physical effects.

There is nothing that I know of that does not ultimately supervene on the physical.

that was very helpful.

i guess what I’m wondering, is this:

we cannot see or touch things like kindness or honesty, but most people acknowledge that they exist. do these kinds of things originate in nature?

how does that fit into the conversation?

 

[Polymath257]

that was very helpful.

i guess what I’m wondering, is this:

we cannot see or touch things like kindness or honesty, but most people acknowledge that they exist. do these kinds of things originate in nature?

how does that fit into the conversation?

Kindness and honesty are properties of humans (and to some extent other animals). Just like a honey badger is inclined to be nasty, some humans are inclined to be kind.

So, yes, they originate in nature. Some other primates have shown tendencies to desire fairness, for example.

How does it fit? Well, we can do a study of human kindness and who is kind, who is not, and maybe why.

And we can decide to promote the *value* of kindness, and honesty, and any number of other values. Those values are helpful for making a society where humans are more likely to achieve fulfillment.

And that is the ultimate basis for human morality.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Kindness and honesty are properties of humans (and to some extent other animals). Just like a honey badger is inclined to be nasty, some humans are inclined to be kind.

So, yes, they originate in nature. Some other primates have shown tendencies to desire fairness, for example.

How does it fit? Well, we can do a study of human kindness and who is kind, who is not, and maybe why.

And we can decide to promote the *value* of kindness, and honesty, and any number of other values. Those values are helpful for making a society where humans are more likely to achieve fulfillment.

And that is the ultimate basis for human morality.

thanks for that response. it was very helpful

now you just raised another question.

since I have had many pets throughout my life and I enjoy the animal kingdom immensely, I used to think animals could show love, or be “good” or “bad”, or be able to learn, but it does not seem so to me any longer to be the case

the animals seem to be more, ummm, programmed, perhaps?

we use the word, instinct

it seems more likely to me, that I gave attributes to animals that I wanted them to have, for some reason

but thinking about it a bit more, I have concluded that animal “goodness”, “badness”, or anything else, is a product of my mind

 

[Polymath257]

The themes of the poem, I think, are transcendence, impermanence; what endures and what does not; what is of real value and what is not.

This is territory traditionally considered proper to the arts, but I think scientists have always considered these questions too.

No. Transcendence and impermanence are generally NOT part of scientific investigation. I guess the question about the half life or a proton is a question about impermanence, but that seems like a stretch.

Many profound truths are articulated in poetry, imo; such truths as may not lend themselves to literal explanation. These truths are of course subjective; as our experience of life is subjective;

And again, the way I use the word *truth* is always objective. Subjective views are called opinions.

Now, opinions are crucial to human life: my opinion that my wife is beautiful makes my life (and hers) much more meaningful. But it is an opinion.

Your view that a piece of poetry is meaningful may work well for you. But the very fact that it is subjective and not objective means it is ultimately an opinion. A *meaningful* and motivating opinion, to be sure. but an opinion nonetheless.

“For we are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little lives are rounded with a sleep.”

And to remove ourselves from the delusions of sleep and wake up to the realities around us is one of the goals many of us have.

Finding truth is not easy *because* we are limited in our senses, our reasoning, and our motivation. We seem to like to delude ourselves, let our egos get in the way, and hope for things to be other than they are.

Science deals with truth. That means it is limited to things that can be true or false. Much of human existence is not like that. Our *opinions* are often more 'meaningful' than reality. But I feel it is 'better' to align our opinions with reality, while also figuring out how we want things to be in the future. Truths can help tell us what is possible. But opinions and meaning help us decide what we want.

 

[Polymath257]

thanks for that response. it was very helpful

now you just raised another question.

since I have had many pets throughout my life and I enjoy the animal kingdom immensely, I used to think animals could show love, or be “good” or “bad”, or be able to learn, but it does not seem so to me any longer to be the case

the animals seem to be more, ummm, programmed, perhaps?

we use the word, instinct

it seems more likely to me, that I gave attributes to animals that I wanted them to have, for some reason

but thinking about it a bit more, I have concluded that animal “goodness”, “badness”, or anything else, is a product of my mind

I would say that they have different values than we do because of their different biology. A dog, for example, will want to please its owner. It will do many things to achieve that goal. That is part of its morality, if you will. But it does not comprehend our values, our morality, and our goals and wishes except in limited circumstances.

I think we don't look at how much of our own behavior is programmed. One difference is that we are able to program ourselves more than most other animals, in part because of our ability to abstract.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I would say that they have different values than we do because of their different biology. A dog, for example, will want to please its owner. It will do many things to achieve that goal. That is part of its morality, if you will. But it does not comprehend our values, our morality, and our goals and wishes except in limited circumstances.

I think we don't look at how much of our own behavior is programmed. One difference is that we are able to program ourselves more than most other animals, in part because of our ability to abstract.

it seems that people have an intellect and a will, whereas all other life forms do not

i wonder why no other life form is able to do the absolutely unique things people do?

as part of the animal kingdom, people eat, protect themselves, and propagate, just like all other animals, but that’s where it seems to end.

 

[Polymath257]

it seems that people have an intellect and a will, whereas all other life forms do not

That is almost certainly false. For example, chimps are better at certain memory tasks than humans. Most other animals have 'will' in the sense of non-pre-programmed desires and behaviors.

i wonder why no other life form is able to do the absolutely unique things people do?

I would point to our comparatively larger brains.

as part of the animal kingdom, people eat, protect themselves, and propagate, just like all other animals, but that’s where it seems to end.

You might want to look up a book 'Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals are'?

 

[Yazata]

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

In one way I would agree with the subject line, but in another way I wouldn't.

If it's just the logical conjunction of two propositions, such that '(I believe in science) & (I don't believe in God)', I guess that (I believe in science) would be T for me (in one sense, at least) and (I don't believe in God) would be T for me as well (again in a particular sense at least).

When I say that 'I believe in science', I'm not really sure what I mean. I don't really know what 'science' is or how to define it. I most definitely am not granting 'science' a cognitive blank check such that I'm committed to believe everything said in the name of 'science'. But whatever it is, I do have great respect for science and for the kind of things that we read in textbooks. I guess that I'm saying that I have faith in 'science', where 'faith' means something like 'confidence in the face of imperfect information'. I trust my life to science every time I board an airplane.

When I say that 'I don't believe in God' I'm basically talking about the "Abrahamic" God of Hebrew, Christian and Muslim mythology. The personalized deity who plays a central role in the Bible and Quran. I don't believe that this figure from religious tradition corresponds to anything more substantial than a fictional character. I certainly don't have any faith/confidence in these three traditions (Judaism, Christianity or Islam).

But that being said, the word 'God' has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and ancient India to refer to something more philosophical: The universe's first-cause. The source of cosmic order. The reason why there is something rather than nothing. These arguments found in the "traditional theistic proofs", all point to unsolved metaphysical questions. I don't have a clue what the answers are, assuming that the questions even have answers. But if we assume that 'God' names whatever the answers are, then I definitely don't want to deny this more metaphysical sort of 'God'. (There are major theological problems though, making this kind of functional-metaphysical 'God' into something like the 'God' of religion. Though Hindu Advaita seems to make a good stab at it, as did the ancient neoplatonists.)

Another idea suggested by the subject line that I most definitely disagree with is the so called 'conflict thesis', the idea that science and religion are fundamentally opposed, have been in sort of a death-struggle throughout history, and that they are exclusive disjoint alternatives. Anyone who has studied the history of science will realize that's simplistic and often false. So if the subject line represents somebody taking a side in this phony historical conflict, then I'm definitely not in agreement.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

That is almost certainly false. For example, chimps are better at certain memory tasks than humans. Most other animals have 'will' in the sense of non-pre-programmed desires and behaviors.



I would point to our comparatively larger brains.



You might want to look up a book 'Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals are'?

now you have given me quite a bit of new territory to explore

thanks again

 

[RestlessSoul]

No. Transcendence and impermanence are generally NOT part of scientific investigation. I guess the question about the half life or a proton is a question about impermanence, but that seems like a stretch.



And again, the way I use the word *truth* is always objective. Subjective views are called opinions.

Now, opinions are crucial to human life: my opinion that my wife is beautiful makes my life (and hers) much more meaningful. But it is an opinion.

Your view that a piece of poetry is meaningful may work well for you. But the very fact that it is subjective and not objective means it is ultimately an opinion. A *meaningful* and motivating opinion, to be sure. but an opinion nonetheless.



And to remove ourselves from the delusions of sleep and wake up to the realities around us is one of the goals many of us have.

Finding truth is not easy *because* we are limited in our senses, our reasoning, and our motivation. We seem to like to delude ourselves, let our egos get in the way, and hope for things to be other than they are.

Science deals with truth. That means it is limited to things that can be true or false. Much of human existence is not like that. Our *opinions* are often more 'meaningful' than reality. But I feel it is 'better' to align our opinions with reality, while also figuring out how we want things to be in the future. Truths can help tell us what is possible. But opinions and meaning help us decide what we want.

Don’t the laws of thermodynamics concern themselves with transcendance (of energy)?

Entropy is the impermanence of form and structure, is it not?


We may strive for objectivity, but the extent to which it can ever be achieved is limited, because our experience of the world within and without us is, by definition, subjective.

For our perceptions of the world to be objective, would they have to be verifiable? That would be confirmed by consensus, would it not? There is little or no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of QM, is there? Nor of how the Quantum world actually corresponds to reality. Isn’t that a 100 year old debate that is still far from being resolved? QM principles have practical applications, in computing, optics etc.; but are they objectively understood?


The reality we wake to is ephemeral, in flux, never still. It has no fixed point, and while it may appear determinist and rational, these may simply be qualities we ourselves apply to make sense of a stochastic universe. It is, in a sense, but our deeper dream. A collective dream, perhaps, if we at least consider the possibility that we are all aspects of one consciousness, each experiencing life subjectively.

 

[ChristineM]

ok

so what do you mean by weighed or measured?

i’m not quite sure

does it have to be physically measured as to size like length and volume
and weighed with a scale?

aren’t there things that you acknowledge exist, but cannot be weighed or measured that way?

So, for example, we can measure the mass of a proton, and the charge of an electron. We don't measure the mass of a proton on a scale. But we can still measure it.

In general, we use interactions with known physical things to measure the properties of unknown physical things. That is what allowed us to detect and measure radio waves, which we cannot see and ultrasound, which we cannot hear. But radio and ultrasound are still physical effects.

There is nothing that I know of that does not ultimately supervene on the physical.

^^^ this ^^^

In fact everything @Polymath257 has said on the subject. He always s far more skilled at expressing himself than i so no need to say my bit

 

[Mock Turtle]

since I have had many pets throughout my life and I enjoy the animal kingdom immensely, I used to think animals could show love, or be “good” or “bad”, or be able to learn, but it does not seem so to me any longer to be the case

the animals seem to be more, ummm, programmed, perhaps?

we use the word, instinct

it seems more likely to me, that I gave attributes to animals that I wanted them to have, for some reason

but thinking about it a bit more, I have concluded that animal “goodness”, “badness”, or anything else, is a product of my mind

I think that might be natural for humans, being anthropomorphic and assigning to other species what matches with our behaviour - what else do we know after all. But when one looks at their behaviour one must try to understand such via their actual lives, and anything that goes on in their minds. I believe we are becoming better at our understanding of animal beahviour but still have much to learn, and such is worth pursuing if we are to truly understand them.

 

[sayak83]

In one way I would agree with the subject line, but in another way I wouldn't.

If it's just the logical conjunction of two propositions, such that '(I believe in science) & (I don't believe in God)', I guess that (I believe in science) would be T for me (in one sense, at least) and (I don't believe in God) would be T for me as well (again in a particular sense at least).

When I say that 'I believe in science', I'm not really sure what I mean. I don't really know what 'science' is or how to define it. I most definitely am not granting 'science' a cognitive blank check such that I'm committed to believe everything said in the name of 'science'. But whatever it is, I do have great respect for science and for the kind of things that we read in textbooks. I guess that I'm saying that I have faith in 'science', where 'faith' means something like 'confidence in the face of imperfect information'. I trust my life to science every time I board an airplane.

When I say that 'I don't believe in God' I'm basically talking about the "Abrahamic" God of Hebrew, Christian and Muslim mythology. The personalized deity who plays a central role in the Bible and Quran. I don't believe that this figure from religious tradition corresponds to anything more substantial than a fictional character. I certainly don't have any faith/confidence in these three traditions (Judaism, Christianity or Islam).

But that being said, the word 'God' has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and ancient India to refer to something more philosophical: The universe's first-cause. The source of cosmic order. The reason why there is something rather than nothing. These arguments found in the "traditional theistic proofs", all point to unsolved metaphysical questions. I don't have a clue what the answers are, assuming that the questions even have answers. But if we assume that 'God' names whatever the answers are, then I definitely don't want to deny this more metaphysical sort of 'God'. (There are major theological problems though, making this kind of functional-metaphysical 'God' into something like the 'God' of religion. Though Hindu Advaita seems to make a good stab at it, as did the ancient neoplatonists.)

Another idea suggested by the subject line that I most definitely disagree with is the so called 'conflict thesis', the idea that science and religion are fundamentally opposed, have been in sort of a death-struggle throughout history, and that they are exclusive disjoint alternatives. Anyone who has studied the history of science will realize that's simplistic and often false. So if the subject line represents somebody taking a side in this phony historical conflict, then I'm definitely not in agreement.

This gets "the best post I have read this month" award.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the word 'God' has been used since the time of the ancient Greeks and ancient India to refer to something more philosophical: The universe's first-cause. The source of cosmic order. The reason why there is something rather than nothing. These arguments found in the "traditional theistic proofs", all point to unsolved metaphysical questions. I don't have a clue what the answers are, assuming that the questions even have answers. But if we assume that 'God' names whatever the answers are, then I definitely don't want to deny this more metaphysical sort of 'God'.

Thoughtful atheists agree that there is much that is unknown and mysterious about existence, but choose to avoid using the word god (or worse, God) to describe what may be an unconscious source for the substance and order we find in reality. The word carries baggage. For most, the implies a person, not a merely an unconscious principle. It seems as though as soon as you use the word god, somebody's telling you what that god told them to tell you about how you need to live your life - religion. For me, it's better to avoid the word unless one means a conscious agent with volition and potency, and I seldom do unless I am talking about other people's beliefs.

Einstein made this error. He used the word God to refer to the mindless laws of physics, impersonal, and deterministic - not a free will, an immaterial person, as depicted in the Abrahamic holy books: "God does not play dice with the universe" by which he meant that the substance of the universe obeys deterministic laws, not the probabilistic laws of quantum science, which he thought were incomplete.

We can all accept that there are such laws even if we don't accept the god hypothesis, and we can have this discussion about them - are they finely tuned? Do they evolve?

But as soon as Einstein introduces the word God to represent these disembodied principles, he is misunderstood, quoted out of context, and made to appear to be a theist.