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

[Scott C.]

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.

 

[McBell]

My, what extra broad brush strokes you use...
One wonders if this OP was supposed to be in the jokes section.

 

[Scott C.]

Jeepers. I haven't started a new thread in a long time, and this is what I get? It's a reasonable question. Of course I'm generalizing. I'm asking people to make introspective observations on their own psyche.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Yes, because we would be less busy dealing with the distractions. But in the sense you probably mean it, no, not at all.

The word "theory" would probably not have been polluted by religious propaganda, and people would take scientific knowledge more seriously.

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.

That is true, but only because creationism (as the word is usually used) is indeed nothing more than stubborn denial of science and fact for lower religious motivations.

Absence of god-beliefs would be helpful there... but only because it would make so-called creationism (and even true creationism) entirely absent and therefore harmless.

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.

Sorry, that is just not very accurate.

The truth of the matter is that there is simply not a lot of substance to the claims that theory is "just theory, not fact". Those are words built from arrogance and fear alone, and we all are the poorer for it.

We ought not to suffer those anymore.

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.

I would take that bet. It is all but entirely impossible for such a thing to happen, if I can be so blunt as to speak my mind.

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.

Perhaps. But that would be so for entirely unrelated reasons to those you offer.

 

[`mud]

In my way of thinking.....religion doesn't exist !
Mythology runs amok !
~
'mud

 

[Valjean]

The thing is, among the scientists promoting the ToE, theory and fact are pretty much synonyms.
In "theory of evolution," theory is used in the scientific sense, not the colloquial sense of conjecture.

Summary of Gould's essay Evolution as Fact and Theory:
http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/WDGroup2/sub pages/stories/evolution_as_fact_and_theory.htm

 

[Laika]

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.

I'm going to come at this from an "odd" angle, but there is a debate in the philosophy of science between realism and anti-realism. This is basically about whether scientific theories correspond to objective reality. Realists assert that scientific ideas do. Anti-Realists do not. To try and illustrate the point, if you ask whether atoms exist, a realist will answer "yes", whereas an anti-realist will say "no, the concept of atoms does not necessarily correspond to what is going on". This problem is particuarly relevant when dealing with subjects we cannot directly percieve because they are too small (such as subatomic particles), too big (e.g. the universe because we can only see the "observable universe"), or are extremely quick or slow processes.

I think you will find that the majority of people who believe evolution is a "fact" are scientific realists. It is an open and shut case for them that the "idea" of evolution corresponds and is identical with the actual process. my understanding is that creationists take an anti-realist position that because we have no observed evolution directly, the evidence is subject to interpretation. i.e. scientists only have pieces of the evidence through the fossil record so don't have the full picture.

The reason I bring this up, is that as a variety of atheism, the Communists were "anti-realists", much like creationists. They treated Science not as an absolute or objective fact but as an "ideology" that did have a subjective component dependent on the observer. They recognised that it was possible to interpret scientific evidence in a number of ways. Of course, they interpreted science is a deliberately partisan way where god played absolutely no role in it because they believed that materialism was superior and intrisically scientific. They were however capable of recognising that there were alternative "theological" interpretations to many scientific theories. Probably the most notable is the Big Bang which raised a potentialy "cosmological argument" for the existence of god.

Now, the "typical" response you will get to that is Hitchen's Razor: The "theist" is making an assertion and therefore it is the theist who has the burden of proof. This was not a Communist view, because it implicitly treats the "atheist" in this argument as if they were wholly neutral and objective. They recognised that concepts of Science, Reason, the criteria for defining what is evidence, Secularism, etc, were all components of "ideology". i.e. Science could not be said to be an absolute reflection of objective reality. For them specifically, interpreting scientific evidence in a "religious" or "creationist" manner reflected class interest (in mystifying nature and society to conceal the "true" physical nature of reality and the exploiting nature of society).

What has taken me a long time to realise is that they never said religion is 100% false. They believed that man created god, and therefore god was a projection of our human qualitities onto the natural world (e.g. consciousness). Instead, they believed that religion is a less useful interpretation of the world. Scientific theories based on natural causes identify causal relationships of natural pheneomena, making them possible to reproduce and to be utilised for technological purposes. e.g. look at the way a birds wing is constructed we can deduce the laws of thermodynamics necessary for heavier than air light in aeroplanes. But if we use religion and say "god gave birds the gift of flight"- it is turned into something that is beyond the reach of our comprehension and therefore our power to change.

So, the problem is not necessarily "fear" but the anti-philosophical certainity of scientific realism which means that many atheists are completely blinded by the assertion that science is absolutely objectively true and deny that subjective interpretation can change it. humility comes from recognising that science is man-made and therefore has human limitations. our power of observations of the natural world and our ability to reproduce natural phenemenoa are subject to our technology. This is not simply in terms of the physical "tools" but also our "ideas". In stages of intellectual development, those who assert scientific realism and take an anti-philosophical attitude towards atheism attribute to themselves qualitities of perfect rationality and objectivity to the point of omniscience. the bigotry and intolerance of many atheists is simply because they are prisoners of their own ideological certainities. Whilst Communism was not "tolerant" of religion by any standards of the imagination- it did actually accept it had to prove it was right and the atheism "worked" as a basis for scientific understanding and was therefore superior to religion and more useful to humanity as a whole. "humility" represents not simply an emotional change, but a "technological" revolution in recognising that truth and science is only a "tool" of human production and can cliam to be no more than what we can demonstrate works in practice. Atheism is simply and "useful" in terms of understanding the world as comprehensible and therefore empowering as we percieve nature as within the scope of human control.

this condenses alot of philosophy, but I hope is food for thought.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Why don't you just go ahead and make your case that the "Creator God" is a scientific theory? Is the idea falsifiable? Is it subject to experimentation? What predictions can be made and tested based on this idea.

The criteria for what is or is not a scientific theory are not something atheists invented to thwart theism. They apply to all ideas whether of religious origin or not.

Fine, if you want to imagine we are having this conversation in a hypothetical atheists world, go ahead. But show us how this idea meets the criteria for a scientific theory. (hint, theoretical falsification is a very important criteria)

 

[Sapiens]

Why do so many cultures believe in unseen beings? - from Psychology Today, 28 June 2011, by Stephen Law, Ph.D.

Why, for example, is belief in invisible,supernatural agents - such as ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods - so widespread? Belief in such supernatural agents appears to be a near universal feature of human societies. There is some evidence that a predisposition towards beliefs of this kind may actually be innate - part of our natural, evolutionary heritage. The Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett has suggested that the prevalence of beliefs of this kind may in part be explained by our possessing a Hyper-sensitive Agent Detection Device, or H.A.D.D.

Human beings explain features of the world around them in two very different ways. For example, we sometimes appeal to natural causes or laws in order to account for an event. Why did that apple fall from the tree? Because the wind blew and shook the branch, causing the apple to fall. Why did the water freeze in the pipes last night, because the temperature of the water fell below zero, and it is a law that water freezes below zero.

However, we also explain by appealing to agents - beings who act on the basis of their beliefs and desires in a more or less rational way. Why did the apple fall from the tree? Because Ted wanted to eat it, believed that shaking the tree would make it fall, and so shook the tree. Why are Mary's car keys on the mantelpiece? Because she wanted to remind herself not to forget them, so put them where she thought she would spot them.

Barrett suggests we have evolved to be overly sensitive to agency. We evolved in anenvironment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

If we do have an H.A.D.D, that would at least partly explain the human tendency to feel there is "someone there" even when no one is observed, and so may at least partly explain our tendency to believe in the existence of invisible agents - in spirits, ghosts, angels or gods.

For example, in his book Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner points out what he believes is the most remarkable characteristic of those using a ouija board (in which the planchette - often an upturned shot glass - on which the subjects' index fingers are gently resting appears to wander independently around the board, spelling out messages from "beyond"):

People using the board seem irresistibly drawn to the conclusion that some sort of unseen agent... is guiding the planchette movement. Not only is there a breakdown in the perception of one's own contribution to the talking board effect but a theory immediately arises to account for this breakdown: the theory of outside agency. In addition to spirits of the dead, people seem willing at times to adduce the influence of demons, angels, and even entities from the future or from outer space, depending on their personal contact with cultural theories about such effects.

Because the movement of the planchette is inexplicable and odd, it is immediately put down to the influence of an invisible agent (though notice the kind of agent invoked varies from group to group depending on their own particular, culturally-led expectations - see Piling Up The Anecdotes).

However, I am not here endorsing the H.A.D.D. explanation for widespread belief in such invisible agents (though I suspect there's some truth to it). Also, notice that, even if we do possess an H.A.D.D, that at best explains the attractiveness of only some wacky belief systems. Many - such as those involving crystal healing, palmistry or numerology - involve no invisible agents.

Note that the H.A.D.D, hypothesis does not say that there are no invisible agents. Perhaps at least some of the invisible agents people suppose exist are real. Perhaps there really are ghosts, or spirits, or gods. However, if we suppose the H.A.D.D, hypothesis does correctly explain why it is that so many people believe in the existence of invisible agents, then the fact that large numbers hold such beliefs can no longer be considered good evidence that any such agents exist. It will no longer do to say, "Surely not all these people can be so very deluded? Surely there must be some truth to these beliefs, otherwise they would not be so widespread?" The fact is, if the H.A.D.D, hypothesis is correct, we're likely to believe in the existence of such invisible agents anyway, whether or not such agents exist. But then the commonality of these beliefs is not good evidence such agents exist. If the H.A.D.D hypothesis is correct, it adds yet another nail to the coffin lid of the suggestion: "Lots of people believe it so there's got to be something to it!"

 

[Scott C.]

This condenses alot of philosophy, but I hope is food for thought.

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.

 

[Scott C.]

Fine, if you want to imagine we are having this conversation in a hypothetical atheists world, go ahead. But show us how this idea meets the criteria for a scientific theory. (hint, theoretical falsification is a very important criteria)

I didn't quite follow. I'm ignoring the existence of God here, as you're aware. What do you mean by "this idea"?

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

The atheists would of made a new religion by then.
If was athiest world and question of God was never considered or asked , would be just world without religious divides all other divides would stay just not the religous one , which is significant as is part of the justifacations of doing terrible things to each other , human nature is such it would replace one divide with another .
Is uphill , probably impossible to right all the wrongs, easier just blow it up.

 

[Sapiens]

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 find that to be a delightful example of the frailties of humans and the egotism of "in-group," cognoscenti style thinking. Humility does not stem from from some show of obsequiousness to today's current invention of an invisible friend (which, by the way makes one part of a special chosen people, complete with special gang-signs, fancy handshakes and clothing that reinforces the separate identity) but rather, true humility comes from the honest ability to say, "I don't know." That is the power of science and the Achilles' heel of religion.

 

[fantome profane]

I didn't quite follow. I'm ignoring the existence of God here, as you're aware. What do you mean by "this idea"?

Perhaps I have misunderstood where you were heading with this.

But the fact remains that in this hypothetical world where idea of "God" did not exist, if these people had the same idea of science that we have, then the same criteria would be employed, in the same way, to determine what is or what is not a scientific hypothesis. The definition of "scientific theory" was not developed specifically in response to creationism, or for evolution. The definition of scientific theory and the criteria we use to determine what is or is not a scientific theory are absolutely fundamental to the scientific method. If the people in this hypothetical godless world of yours were "more open-minded" concerning the definition of "scientific theory", then they would no longer be doing science. The definition of what is a scientific theory cannot change. If it were in any way different in this hypothetical world of yours then you are not just hypothesizing a godless world, but a science-free world as well.

 

[Yerda]

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?

Possibly. I don't think God is the problem - it's the determination of some people to believe in the empty, literal interpretations of certain passages in certain books. If that wasn't an issue then where evolution is concerned you'd probably find almost everyone in agreement that the evidence is compelling. You might find more open-mindedness on the details of the exact mechanisms by which evolution occurs and what can constitute an evolving system.

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've been on the end of a fair few lectures about what is science, what is a theory etc and I'm an atheist who's enthusiastically interested in science. I have also been arrogant and condescending to others who didn't deserve it so maybe it's just a people thing.

 

[Papoon]

I don't think God is the problem - it's the determination of some people to believe in the empty, literal interpretations of certain passages in certain books

Good point. I would add that this tendency is an outcome of pack bonding behaviours.
Once an idea represents 'us', it becomes intractable dogma.

 

[Scott C.]

Perhaps I have misunderstood where you were heading with this.

But the fact remains that in this hypothetical world where idea of "God" did not exist, if these people had the same idea of science that we have, then the same criteria would be employed, in the same way, to determine what is or what is not a scientific hypothesis. The definition of "scientific theory" was not developed specifically in response to creationism, or for evolution. The definition of scientific theory and the criteria we use to determine what is or is not a scientific theory are absolutely fundamental to the scientific method. If the people in this hypothetical godless world of yours were "more open-minded" concerning the definition of "scientific theory", then they would no longer be doing science. The definition of what is a scientific theory cannot change. If it were in any way different in this hypothetical world of yours then you are not just hypothesizing a godless world, but a science-free world as well.

Ok perhaps I used the word "theory" incorrectly. What I'm talking about is when scientists see evidence (not yet proof) that points them in a certain direction. They have reason to believe that something may be factual, but they need more evidence before they call it a fact. I was referring to this first case as a theory and the latter as fact.

 

[Sapiens]

Ok perhaps I used the word "theory" incorrectly. What I'm talking about is when scientists see evidence (not yet proof) that points them in a certain direction. They have reason to believe that something may be factual, but they need more evidence before they call it a fact. I was referring to this first case as a theory and the latter as fact.

Yes you are using the word "theory" incorrectly. Try: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_19

 

[Scott C.]

The truth of the matter is that there is simply not a lot of substance to the claims that theory is "just theory, not fact". Those are words built from arrogance and fear alone, and we all are the poorer for it.

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? Is the evidence equally compelling? I doubt it. Why are we fellow atheists (hypothetically speaking) not more willing to acknowledge room for error?

 

[Sapiens]

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.

No! The best you can do is be pretty sure. There is some possibility that you are dreaming, hallucinating, misconceiving, etc.

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?

Yes they are.

Is the evidence equally compelling?

Yes it is, the genetic evidence is incontrovertible. That's why the creationists always want to argue from the much more subjective and incomplete fossil record. Not to mention that few of them understand either what Darwin said or even the rudiments of genomic analysis. It is important to note that the fossil record, whist incomplete, never contradicts the genetic or immunological findings.

I doubt it.

Then you are misinformed.

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

We are much more willing to acknowledge room for error, where it exists. We also know where it is that there is little error to be found. Contrast that with religion where there is no acknowledged room for error yet there is lots of error to be found.[/QUOTE]