If everyone were atheist, would atheists be more open minded regarding scientific theory vs fact?

[LuisDantas]

Let's use evolution as an example, simply because that's what comes to mind. I have no problem with evolution. I have no reason to fear it or to reject it or to hope or wish that it's not true. Right now, I'm sitting in a chair with the laptop in my lab. There's a dog to the right on the floor. I'm as certain of these facts as I am of any other fact. I'm using sight, touch, smell, sound, and even taste (I just licked my fingers), to conclude that my current environment is as I described. I'm confident that if any other human being with normal senses and intelligence came into this room, they would be equally certain that the environment is as I described.

Now, are the best scientific minds on this planet as certain about the evolution of man that was occurring millions of years ago as I am certain of my current environment?

Not sure how exactly you would compare the situations, but in a nutshell: yes.

Is the evidence equally compelling? I doubt it.

Why?

Why are we fellow atheists (hypothetically speaking) not more willing to acknowledge room for error?

Given reason, we should.

There is no such reason when it comes to evolution. It is a biological theory, which is to say, it is proven fact for all practical purposes. It is as "uncertain" as gravity or the conservation of movement.

It is simply not a good choice of subject matter to attempt to encourage science to be humbler.

Had you tried, say, economics, ethics or sociology, now we would have a different dynamic.

 

[Sunstone]

The OP seems to assume that atheists -- and perhaps even scientists -- are rather incompetent when it comes to assessing the explanatory power and reliability of the evolutionary sciences. It also seems to assume that when atheists and/or scientists refer to creationists as "ignorant" or perhaps "misinformed" about evolution, they don't really mean that the creationists are indeed ignorant or misinformed about evolution. Neither assumption is, in my opinion, warranted.

 

[Scott C.]

The OP seems to assume that atheists -- and perhaps even scientists -- are rather incompetent when it comes to assessing the explanatory power and reliability of the evolutionary sciences. It also seems to assume that when atheists and/or scientists refer to creationists as "ignorant" or perhaps "misinformed" about evolution, they don't really mean that the creationists are indeed ignorant or misinformed about evolution. Neither assumption is, in my opinion, warranted.

Not sure how exactly you would compare the situations, but in a nutshell: yes.

Read post #10 carefully. I'd like to hear you interact with that. Don't comment in relation to theism, creationism or anything religious. Am I the only person out there who thinks as I described in #10. Can anyone relate? I'm in total awe when I consider the enormity of space and the limited capacity of man to comprehend it all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Read post #10 carefully. I'd like to hear you interact with that. Don't comment in relation to theism, creationism or anything religious. Am I the only person out there who thinks as I described in #10. Can anyone relate? I'm in total awe when I consider the enormity of space and the limited capacity of man to comprehend it all.

Sure, it is an entirely familiar feeling. Although the numbers you use are somewhat inflated IMO. Even people with a 180 IQ enjoy (and suffer from) an entirely different experience of world perception compared to regular people. It is marvelous... and crippling.

It is just that it does not really connect to the OP, far as I can tell.

 

[Laika]

Read post #10 carefully. I'd like to hear you interact with that. Don't comment in relation to theism, creationism or anything religious. Am I the only person out there who thinks as I described in #10. Can anyone relate? I'm in total awe when I consider the enormity of space and the limited capacity of man to comprehend it all.

I know this feeling.

As an Atheist, thinking about Space is the closest I get to a "religious" experience. There is something very liberating in recognising how insignificant and inconsequential we are, and yet not being threatened by it. I get that "transcendental" vibe of knowing I'm looking at something bigger and older than I will ever comprehend. there is joy in that smallness, as we become free for the illusions of everyday life and the certainties which can imprison us. I can relate that to the concept of "zen", that sense of "knowing but not knowing", that knowledge is an illusion. it takes a deeper level of concentration that I am used to.

Fascinating and well said. Maybe I possess elements of anti-realism. I'll admit that it's hard for me to separate myself from my religious perspective, but I'm trying for the purposes of this subject. Regardless of God or no God, we must be able to see ourselves as intellectually puny and nearly incompetent, as compared to what we would be if we were 1,000,000 times more intelligent than we are. And what if we were yet 1,000,000 times more intelligent than that? And what if we had capacity to travel at the speed of light to explore the universe? And what if we had perfect memory recall of every data element ever to enter our minds? How much more sophisticated would be our understanding of the cosmos and the laws of nature? And what if humanity carried on for another trillion years and then another trillion? Would we understand things that turn our current views upside down? We must have the humility to recognize our own limitations as mere humans. One does not have to acknowledge supreme intelligence in a creator, to see his own inadequacy. If we can conceive of far greater intelligence, that should be sufficient for humility regardless of whether or not anyone actually exists who possesses such intelligence.

Having said that, we must not ignore our science. We of course use our findings to our benefit. We learn the laws of physics and we make airplanes that do indeed fly. We see consistency, that we rely on. We should keep doing so. Keep exploring. Keep finding new facts. As we do so, we must realize that of all things that could be known, given sufficient human capacity, we know very, very little.

I have difficultly thinking outside of the "atheist-materialist" box, but there is that strange sense you get that ultimately everyone thinks and feels as you do. Maybe not exactly- but it is like we all share the same set of colours even as we paint a different canvass of our inner experiences. I can find some level of acceptance for other people there.

It is however really difficult to think like that all the time, and I would certainly be a lot happier if I could. Too often worrying about being "right" and "wrong" is just an illusion. learning to let things go and "let the world be" is a good skill for a person- of any persuasion. there are "higher states of consciousness" regardless as to whether you believe it is access to the divine or simply yourself.

if you want to "day dream" and talk about space sometime, let me know. it's stop me obsessing over everyday **** that gets me down. taking time to find perspective is healthy.

p.s. After watching an episode of House, I remember there is actually a mental disorder where people have near perfect memory recall (or significantly above average); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymesia

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If everyone were atheists, there'd probably be a lot less false dichotomization of scientific theory and fact.

 

[Laika]

@Scott C.

If you haven't seen it already... here's Carl Sagan on the "Pale Blue Dot".

 

[Yerda]

...here's Carl Sagan on the "Pale Blue Dot".

I don't how many times I've seen that. It's always lovely.

 

[Parsimony]

If everyone was an atheist, then there would be no religious fundamentalists. That being said, there would be far more people accepting the theory of evolution because they would not fear its implications that their scripture (or interpretation thereof) was wrong.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Imagine a world where the thought of God, a god, or a Creator never crossed anyone's mind. The concept simply does not exist. Would there be an increase in open mindedness regarding what is scientific fact and what is theory?

For example, there's a lot of emotion behind the suggestion that evolution may be only a theory. The motivation behind the suggestion may be to preserve the belief in creationism. The atheist wants nothing of this, so he's adamant that evolution is a fact, that the Creationist is anti-science, end of story.

I sense on this site and in other places in society that there's a degree of arrogance and condescension from those who believe they have science figured out and absolutely know when something is theory or fact. I suspect that if there were no fear of giving ground to religious arguments, since no such arguments would exist, that there would be more humility and less certainty expressed on some scientific findings.

I also suspect that some atheists who read this, will not want to concede this point for fear that my motivation is to open the door to the truth of religious principles in which I believe. So, for the sake of this discussion, let's live in the hypothetical world where religion does not exist.

Do we need a little more humility in our scientific interpretation of the world and the cosmos? I say yes.

It's obvious that you don't comprehend what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is the closets that science has to a scientific fact. Gravity is a scientific theory. That the Earth orbits abound the sun is a scientific theory. Neither are considered scientific 'facts', even though we are quite certain that the Earth does indeed orbit around the sun, because strictly speaking science does not use that term 'scientific fact'. A scientific theory is an explanation of how something works that no one has been able to disprove. Thus the theory of evolution is just as legitimate as the theory that the Earth orbits the sun. In fact, science has far MORE evidence for the theory of evolution than science has for the theory that the Earth orbits the sun.

Whether or not everyone was an atheist wouldn't change how science views scientific theories in any way shape or form.

 

[Scott C.]

It's obvious that you don't comprehend what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is the closets that science has to a scientific fact. Gravity is a scientific theory. That the Earth orbits abound the sun is a scientific theory. Neither are considered scientific 'facts', even though we are quite certain that the Earth does indeed orbit around the sun, because strictly speaking science does not use that term 'scientific fact'. A scientific theory is an explanation of how something works that no one has been able to disprove. Thus the theory of evolution is just as legitimate as the theory that the Earth orbits the sun. In fact, science has far MORE evidence for the theory of evolution than science has for the theory that the Earth orbits the sun.

Whether or not everyone was an atheist wouldn't change how science views scientific theories in any way shape or form.

We've already been down the "wrong technical usage of theory" path. I think my point was clear if you allow for the casual every day use of the term as in "Do you have any theories on who ate my ice cream"? "Yes, the puppy has a guilty look on his face."

 

[Scott C.]

Sure, it is an entirely familiar feeling. Although the numbers you use are somewhat inflated IMO. Even people with a 180 IQ enjoy (and suffer from) an entirely different experience of world perception compared to regular people. It is marvelous... and crippling.

Yeah, trust me, it's painful at 200.

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah, trust me, it's painful at 200.

Are you claiming to be at least 10 IQ points smarter than Einstein or are you relating someone else's observation? If so, whose?

 

[fantome profane]

I think my point was clear

It's actually not clear at all. At least not to me.

Try this, if you could rewrite the thread title at this point, what would you write?

 

[Scott C.]

It's actually not clear at all. At least not to me.

Try this, if you could rewrite the thread title at this point, what would you write?

Yes, I would re-write it. I've gone off on tangents which seemed more interesting. Here's where I've gone...

1. Do some atheists overstate the scientific certainty of those things that contradict some religious beliefs? Do they do so, perhaps subconsciously, so as to give no room to any Creationist arguments? Every response has been "no".

2. Forget about God and creation altogether. We are mere mortals with finite minds and intelligence and capacity to understand. There are many, many scientific truths that are simply beyond our reach. Suppose if we were 1,000,000,000 times more intelligent than we are. Suppose that we had the capacity to travel at the speed of light. Suppose with those abilities and more that we progressed in science for another trillion years. The knowledge base of humanity would far outreach that which we have now, beyond what we can imagine. Might many current theories be turned upside down? Should this cause us to be a bit more reflective and even humble in our declarations of what is real and what is conjecture? I didn't receive much acknowledgment that yes, we are small and not all that smart when we consider it that way. I didn't hear anyone agree that yes, current theories, no matter how certain, could be proven totally wrong, given the scenario I described.

3. Given our current capacity to understand the world, is organic evolution as close to being fact, as is the theory that the earth moves around the sun, as gravity, and as certain as I am that I'm sitting here typing at the moment? Surprisingly, the responses were "yes", it is equally certain.

I find (2) to be the most interesting question and it actually blows my mind to consider.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I would re-write it. I've gone off on tangents which seemed more interesting. Here's where I've gone...

1. Do some atheists overstate the scientific certainty of those things that contradict some religious beliefs? Do they do so, perhaps subconsciously, so as to give no room to any Creationist arguments? Every response has been "no".

As one should expect. You are taking backwards. It is so-called creationism that is based on denial of know facts. It is a denial movement with good PR, but a denial movement all the same.

2. Forget about God and creation altogether. We are mere mortals with finite minds and intelligence and capacity to understand. There are many, many scientific truths that are simply beyond our reach. Suppose if we were 1,000,000,000 times more intelligent than we are. Suppose that we had the capacity to travel at the speed of light. Suppose with those abilities and more that we progressed in science for another trillion years. The knowledge base of humanity would far outreach that which we have now, beyond what we can imagine. Might many current theories be turned upside down? Should this cause us to be a bit more reflective and even humble in our declarations of what is real and what is conjecture? I didn't receive much acknowledgment that yes, we are small and not all that smart when we consider it that way. I didn't hear anyone agree that yes, current theories, no matter how certain, could be proven totally wrong, given the scenario I described.

We have no more reason to be humble about our understanding of evolution than we have reason to be humble about any other scientific knowledge.

3. Given our current capacity to understand the world, is organic evolution as close to being fact, as is the theory that the earth moves around the sun, as gravity, and as certain as I am that I'm sitting here typing at the moment? Surprisingly, the responses were "yes", it is equally certain.

At the very least. Why does that surprise you?

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, I would re-write it. I've gone off on tangents which seemed more interesting. Here's where I've gone...

1. Do some atheists overstate the scientific certainty of those things that contradict some religious beliefs? Do they do so, perhaps subconsciously, so as to give no room to any Creationist arguments? Every response has been "no".

This is very confusing to me. What exactly would be the creationist arguments in a world without the idea of "God"? And what would those arguments be based on?


Give us a specific example of the kind of argument you are thinking of, and do so without mentioning or implying the idea of "God". Then we can see if we are being too closed minded about it or not.

2. Forget about God and creation altogether. We are mere mortals with finite minds and intelligence and capacity to understand. There are many, many scientific truths that are simply beyond our reach. Suppose if we were 1,000,000,000 times more intelligent than we are. Suppose that we had the capacity to travel at the speed of light. Suppose with those abilities and more that we progressed in science for another trillion years. The knowledge base of humanity would far outreach that which we have now, beyond what we can imagine. Might many current theories be turned upside down? Should this cause us to be a bit more reflective and even humble in our declarations of what is real and what is conjecture? I didn't receive much acknowledgment that yes, we are small and not all that smart when we consider it that way. I didn't hear anyone agree that yes, current theories, no matter how certain, could be proven totally wrong, given the scenario I described.

Obviously there are things that are beyond our current understanding, and things that may always be beyond our understanding. But I don't see how adding or subtracting the idea of "God" changes that.

Scientific theories and scientific facts are always provisional, they are based on the evidence.. Given the evidence we have we draw this conclusion. If we had other evidence we would perhaps draw other conclusions. Perhaps what we consider scientific facts will be overturned in a thousand years (or a trillion if you like). But the only way we can make reasonable predictions of what will or will not likely change is to look at the evidence we have. It is not likely that scientific progress will lead to the conclusion that the universe is only 6000 years old, or that the earth is flat and the sky is a glass dome, or that the sun is pulled across the sky by a divine chariot. Yes there is a lot that we don't know, but that is not a reasonable argument against evolution, or the big bang, or germ theory, or gravity etc. It is not closed minded to say that these things are facts, and to require that those who disagree with those facts to provide evidence. No, just saying we must be humble is not sufficient to overturn a scientific fact.

3. Given our current capacity to understand the world, is organic evolution as close to being fact, as is the theory that the earth moves around the sun, as gravity, and as certain as I am that I'm sitting here typing at the moment? Surprisingly, the responses were "yes", it is equally certain.

Yes, it is equally certain. People can and do argue for a flat earth, but it is absurd. Denying evolution is equally absurd.

 

[Scott C.]

As one should expect. You are taking backwards. It is so-called creationism that is based on denial of know facts. It is a denial movement with good PR, but a denial movement all the same.




We have no more reason to be humble about our understanding of evolution than we have reason to be humble about any other scientific knowledge.



At the very least. Why does that surprise you?

Yes, some creationists deny science. Let's drop this one.
Forget about evolution. Do you agree that if we were 1,000,000 times smarter, bla, bla, bla, that many theories in which we now have great confidence may be turned upside down?
I'm surprised that the scientific community would be equally certain about what happened a billion years ago, as they are certain of what's on TV night.

 

[Scott C.]

Scientific theories and scientific facts are always provisional, they are based on the evidence.. Given the evidence we have we draw this conclusion. If we had other evidence we would perhaps draw other conclusions. Perhaps what we consider scientific facts will be overturned in a thousand years (or a trillion if you like). But the only way we can make reasonable predictions of what will or will not likely change is to look at the evidence we have. It is not likely that scientific progress will lead to the conclusion that the universe is only 6000 years old, or that the earth is flat and the sky is a glass dome, or that the sun is pulled across the sky by a divine chariot. Yes there is a lot that we don't know, but that is not a reasonable argument against evolution, or the big bang, or germ theory, or gravity etc. It is not closed minded to say that these things are facts, and to require that those who disagree with those facts to provide evidence. No, just saying we must be humble is not sufficient to overturn a scientific fact.

I don't disagree what you said above. But I am surprised at the certainty expressed here regarding evolution. I would be equally surprised if others expressed equal certainty regarding black holes or the big bang. I respect research into what happened millions of years ago and into what's happening millions of light years away. I realize we need to follow the evidence and the evidence is compelling. But I would say that our understanding of evolution, black holes, or the big bang is not as certain as our understanding of the shape of the earth. We can be 99.9% certain of some things, 95% certain of others and 80% certain of others.

I'm not 100% certain that science gets it right on black holes, the big bang, or evolution. But I am 100% certain that I'm sitting here typing on my laptop. Since some people are as certain of evolution as they are of their own first names, I must assume that either 1) if I studied science more, I would be equally certain or 2) some people are putting a little too much confidence in the ability of humankind to discern the cosmos.[/QUOTE]

 

[fantome profane]

I'm not 100% certain that science gets it right on black holes, the big bang, or evolution. But I am 100% certain that I'm sitting here typing on my laptop. Since some people are as certain of evolution as they are of their own first names, I must assume that either 1) if I studied science more, I would be equally certain or 2) some people are putting a little too much confidence in the ability of humankind to discern the cosmos.

3) you are putting too much confidence in your knowledge of your own first name.