Science and atheism inconsistent?

[ecco]

You are so wrong. I am implying nothing of the sort. I’m borderline atheist myself (I’m a very skeptical agnostic at this point).
Why are you reading too much into my posts?

Just the way I was reading some of your comments - Obviously, I wasn't sure either way. That why I wrote...

Perhaps I'm reading to much into your comment,

Let us know when you get over that last hurdle and we'll raise our glasses in a welcome toast.

 

[ecco]

Can you lift love in a bucket? Can you lift beauty in a bucket?

Hint
Someone wondered if he could put time in a bottle. He expanded on the theme and made a ton of money.
Hint

 

[ecco]

but 'a woman formed from the rib of a man,' would be in conflict with science and natural methods.

But that is specifically what one of your Messengers said happened. Did the Messenger lie? If so how many other lies did he tell? How many other Messengers have lied?

 

[ecco]

Nope.
Nope.

And your point is?

No point at this point. It seems, insofar as the above, we are on the same page.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Some philosophers and scientists have argued that for phenomena like consciousness, human morality, and some instances of biological complexity, explanations in terms of natural or evolutionary theses have not and will not be able to provide us with a complete picture.Therefore, the inference to some supernatural force is warranted

But appealing to the supernatural is not warranted simply because some things haven’t been explained yet. That’s a logical fallacy – an argument from ignorance.

atheism is an absolute statement

Atheism isn't a statement at all beyond the answer "No" to the question of whether one believes in a god or gods.

Nor is there anything absolute about atheism. It's the flexible position that one chooses to live as if gods don't exist until a reason to live otherwise surfaces.

it seems that nearly every atheist I meet believes that science has somehow justified their atheism.

Not this atheist.

What justifies my atheism is reason, not science. Rational skepticism coupled with empiricism have proven themselves to be valuable ideas. When applied to the matter of how the world works, they transformed alchemy, astrology, and creationism, all sterile systems of thought, into chemistry, astronomy, and modern biology, all stunningly successful.

Rational skepticism and empiricism applied to daily life gave us secular humanism and rational ethics, a huge improvement over monarchies, theocracies, and received, allegedly revealed, ethical systems. Today, we have citizens with guaranteed personal rights living under the rule of law instead of subjects submitting to the whim of tyrants.

So, I have excellent grounds for respecting the application of these two wildly successful ideas to the problem of gods, where they yield atheism. That's how I justify my atheism – with pure reason, not with science.

Science has, however, made it possible to be self-respecting atheist, especially the great discoveries suggesting that the universe and the life in it might have self-assembled over billions of years.

There's also the matter of science continually replacing supernatural explanations contrived by people who didn't know where the rain came from with scientific explanations that removed deities from the process. We have many very useful scientific theories, none of them containing a god, and none that would benefit in terms of explanatory or predictive power by the ad hoc insertion of one into any of those theories.

Science has shown us that every creation myth is false, another reason to be disinclined to accept the reports of believers.

And scientists have been studying our reality at every scale from the subatomic (Higgs boson) to the cosmological scale (WMAP) since the invention of the microscope and telescope, and have never found a scintilla of evidence better explained by positing a designer.

The gaps are closing. It not only appears that we don't need an intelligent designer, it appears that there would be nothing for it to do.

So, while I agree that none of this disproves the possibility of a god or gods, it does allow one to live life as if either none exist, either because they don't, or because if they do, they either are unknowable or choose not to be known. In either case, atheistic life makes more sense.

theism is based on value, not evidence.

Then to the person who finds no value in theism, there is no reason to participate in it.

No one is proposing that there is actual proof of the existence of God. No one sane, anyway.

Sure they are. Many if not most theists claim that the existence of a god or gods is a fact. We call them gnostic theists. Are they all insane?

Being skeptical is a characteristic of agnosticism. Not atheism.

Rational skepticism coupled with empiricism is the justification for atheism, meaning that skepticism underlies most atheism. Rational skepticism, or the unwillingness to believe without sufficient supporting evidence, combined with the dearth of credible evidence for gods leads to atheism.

The agnosticism of the agnostic atheist derives from his recognition of the limits of knowledge on the matter of gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

But appealing to the supernatural is not warranted simply because some things haven’t been explained yet. That’s a logical fallacy – an argument from ignorance.

I do not think this quote you cited was from me, and it sounds more like @PureX . I will check

"Some philosophers and scientists have argued that for phenomena like consciousness, human morality, and some instances of biological complexity, explanations in terms of natural or evolutionary theses have not and will not be able to provide us with a complete picture.Therefore, the inference to some supernatural force is warranted."

 

[shunyadragon]

But that is specifically what one of your Messengers said happened. Did the Messenger lie? If so how many other lies did he tell? How many other Messengers have lied?

Not my Messenger, maybe a mythological citation from the Bible. Not the Baha'i writings. I do not consider the scripture of ancient religions necessarily all from God. They include mythology and human insertions. Genesis is mostly mythology and questionable history. God did not write Genesis

You apparently do not understand the Baha'i worldview concerning the different religions,

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll just repeat...
You don't like my responses and refer to them as "vindictive sarcasm" and state that they do not "contribute to the dialogue". However, you are entirely comfortable with saying that atheists need to satisfy some spiritual needs. You are entirely comfortable with making sweeping demeaning and factually incorrect statements like "atheists are often rejected and shunned by their prior peers".

Your post is, at best, hypocritical.

I did not say the bold, you illiterate. I said some may . . .

I personally know a number of atheists that are shunned by their relatives and friends who are Christians and in Islamic countries it is punishable by death by various means in Western countries the Muslims definitely are shunned.

By the way to be a Baha'i is also punishable by death in some Islamic countries.

Atheists were the most unpopular group in America they were recently surpassed by Muslims as the most unpopular group.

From: Muslims surpass atheists as most unpopular group in US - Religion News Service

(RNS) Maybe atheists should just embrace it as a slogan: “Atheists: The group Americans love to hate.”

About 40 percent of Americans say atheists “do not at all agree” with their vision of America, according to a new study from sociologists at the University of Minnesota who compared Americans’ perceptions of minority faith and racial groups.

But the study marks a grimmer milestone — Americans’ disapproval of Muslims has jumped to 45.5 percent from just over 26 percent 10 years ago, the last time the question was asked.

And “nones” — those who say they have no religious affiliation, but may also have spiritual or religious beliefs — are also unpopular. This is significant because nones now make up one-third of the U.S. population.

The study found:

• Almost half of those surveyed — 48.9 percent — said they would disapprove of their child marrying a Muslim, up from 33.5 percent in 2006.
• The spiritual but not religious are mistrusted by 12 percent of Americans, while almost 40 percent of Americans say the rise of the “nones” is “not a good thing.”
• Disapproval rates for several minority groups have grown — Jews, Latinos and Asian-Americans experienced 10-point jumps in disapproval, while recent immigrants, conservative Christians and African-Americans grew about 13 percent each.

The new study also attempts to find out why atheists are so reviled by what its authors call “dominant group members” — aka religious Americans. The findings pinpoint three things: Religious Americans associate atheists with “criminality,” materialism and “a lack of accountability.”

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Can you lift love in a bucket? Can you lift beauty in a bucket? Can you lift honor or fairness in a bucket? Do we all have to experience these phenomena in exactly the same way, and then describe them in exactly the same way for them to be deemed "real", to you? God, love, beauty, honor, fairness, and so on are all experienced conceptually. They are all ways of understanding what and how we experience being in the world, as humans. You aren't proposing that all the other conceptual experiences are unreal, are you? Why not? They aren't made of matter, either, and that seems to be why you can't accept the conceptual experience of "God" as being a valid experience of reality.

Why do you keep conflating things that are conceptual(not real) in their origin with things that are perceptual(real) in their origin? It is a dishonest equivocation. Conceptual things are not physical things even when you try an label them as human experiences. Can you also put faith, belief, God, or consciousness into a bucket as well? Of course not. They are not physical stuff. They are simply the terms/language we use to describe conceptual stuff. All zero-dimensional conceptual experiences are subjective. But all perceptual experiences are very real and objective. If you are hit in the head by a baseball, there is a direct connection between time, pain, cause, and effect. There is no direct connection with anything you can imagine inside your mind, and anything that exists outside of your mind. That is, you can't affect reality by using only the thoughts in your mind. The power of prayer has clearly demonstrated this.

Don't misunderstand me. Both experiences are cognitively important. But both are clearly different. Conceptional experiences are not sensory-based in its origin. Perceptual experiences are. Without our conceptual ability to fill the gaps in our perception of reality, our world would look very different indeed. Both are necessary to successfully navigate through our environment, and learn new skills to increase our chances for survival.

I am clearly stating that conceptual experiences are only subjectively real, and not objectively real. Are alien abductions, paranormal activities, and ghosts, objectively real. NO. Unless of course, you can demonstrate that they are. Therefore, can you objectively demonstrate that having any relationship with a God is objectively real? No. So please do not use the human condition, to conflate the difference between what is real and what is not real.

 

[Unguru]

Atheism is inconsistent with science, says physicist Marcelo Gleiser

Quite considerably, even on the most basic logical level (even if they attempt to demand otherwise)

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Creation of our natural existence and humanity by God by natural methods is in harmony with science is not in conflict with science, but 'a woman formed from the rib of a man,' would be in conflict with science and natural methods.

What exactly do you mean by "Creation of our natural existence and humanity by God by natural methods is in harmony with science..."? Are you saying that God created Abiogenesis and evolution? Sorry, another two questions. Just pick one.

 

[PureX]

Bob & Ray are in a desert with no water.
Ray sees a mirage....an oasis in the distance.
Bob doesn't see it.
Should Ray feel sympathy for Bob?
Nah.

The inability to come up with a better analogy is why you have my sympathy. Because the reality of theism is far more complex then that. Yet I believe that really is all you can see of it.

 

[PureX]

Hint
Someone wondered if he could put time in a bottle. He expanded on the theme and made a ton of money.
Hint

...And it was the money that mattered, right?

 

[PureX]

Why do you keep conflating things that are conceptual(not real) in their origin with things that are perceptual(real) in their origin?

Because perception is conception. They are not separate phenomena in humans.

It is a dishonest equivocation.

Dishonesty is a human concept.

Conceptual things are not physical things even when you try an label them as human experiences.

Physicality is a human concept.

Can you also put faith, belief, God, or consciousness into a bucket as well? Of course not. They are not physical stuff.

They are human concepts, just like honesty and physicality. They are how we make sense of our experience of being. Without them there is no "reality". There is no "physical stuff". There is no "us". Humans cannot exist without conceptual cognition. That's how "real" conceptual cognition is.

They are simply the terms/language we use to describe conceptual stuff. All zero-dimensional conceptual experiences are subjective.

Dimensionality is a human concept. You are trying to use a human concept to nullify human conceptual cognition. It's incoherent reasoning.

But all perceptual experiences are very real and objective.

That's a conceptual bias. And it's wildly irrational.

If you are hit in the head by a baseball, there is a direct connection between time, pain, cause, and effect. There is no direct connection with anything you can imagine inside your mind, and anything that exists outside of your mind. That is, you can't affect reality by using only the thoughts in your mind. The power of prayer has clearly demonstrated this.

None of this matters if we are incapable of cognating (conceptualizing) the nerve impulses being sent to our brains. Perception without cognition is an irrelevant proposition.

Don't misunderstand me. Both experiences are cognitively important. But both are clearly different.

The difference is imaginary, and irrelevant. The nerve impulses by themselves are meaningless physical gibberish until the brain conceptualizes them. Reality doesn't exist until the human brain conceptualizes it. So claiming that "God isn't real because it's conceptual" is irrational. Because reality, itself, is a human conceptualization. You are nullifying your own conception of what is and isn't real.

Conceptional experiences are not sensory-based in its origin. Perceptual experiences are.

Nerve impulses without conceptual cognition aren't anything, because "thingness" is a human concept.

Without our conceptual ability to fill the gaps in our perception of reality, our world would look very different indeed.

It wouldn't "look like" anything at all. Because 'similarity' is a human conception.

I am clearly stating that conceptual experiences are only subjectively real, and not objectively real.

Subjectivity and objectivity are both human concepts, and are both subject to the same human limitations, individually and collectively, as all other human concepts are. All human cognition is subjective because the human is the subject of the subjectivism.

Are alien abductions, paranormal activities, and ghosts, objectively real. NO

"Real" according to who's conception of reality? Are you proposing that you be the arbiter for all humanity of what the conceptual criteria of reality be? Because that sounds like the position you've taken for yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

What exactly do you mean by "Creation of our natural existence and humanity by God by natural methods is in harmony with science..."?

I am saying exactly as I wrote. The view reflects the Baha'i principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion. Religious scripture must be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science.

Are you saying that God created Abiogenesis and evolution? Sorry, another two questions. Just pick one.

Yes, this is close to the prevalent view of Theistic Evolution (TE), I call it Theistic Naturalism.

From: Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.

From: Theistic Naturalism

“Theistic naturalism” is a term used to label an approach to divine action in which theistic belief is upheld but descriptions of events that invoke divine interference with the world are rejected.

 

[Revoltingest]

The inability to come up with a better analogy is why you have my sympathy. Because the reality of theism is far more complex then that. Yet I believe that really is all you can see of it.

Atheism's advantage is simplicity.
Don't believe in things unevidenced.
Oh, well....sympathy beats scorn.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I did not say the bold, you illiterate. I said some may . . .

I personally know a number of atheists that are shunned by their relatives and friends who are Christians and in Islamic countries it is punishable by death by various means in Western countries the Muslims definitely are shunned.

By the way to be a Baha'i is also punishable by death in some Islamic countries.

Atheists were the most unpopular group in America they were recently surpassed by Muslims as the most unpopular group.

From: Muslims surpass atheists as most unpopular group in US - Religion News Service

(RNS) Maybe atheists should just embrace it as a slogan: “Atheists: The group Americans love to hate.”

About 40 percent of Americans say atheists “do not at all agree” with their vision of America, according to a new study from sociologists at the University of Minnesota who compared Americans’ perceptions of minority faith and racial groups.

But the study marks a grimmer milestone — Americans’ disapproval of Muslims has jumped to 45.5 percent from just over 26 percent 10 years ago, the last time the question was asked.

And “nones” — those who say they have no religious affiliation, but may also have spiritual or religious beliefs — are also unpopular. This is significant because nones now make up one-third of the U.S. population.

The study found:

• Almost half of those surveyed — 48.9 percent — said they would disapprove of their child marrying a Muslim, up from 33.5 percent in 2006.
• The spiritual but not religious are mistrusted by 12 percent of Americans, while almost 40 percent of Americans say the rise of the “nones” is “not a good thing.”
• Disapproval rates for several minority groups have grown — Jews, Latinos and Asian-Americans experienced 10-point jumps in disapproval, while recent immigrants, conservative Christians and African-Americans grew about 13 percent each.

The new study also attempts to find out why atheists are so reviled by what its authors call “dominant group members” — aka religious Americans. The findings pinpoint three things: Religious Americans associate atheists with “criminality,” materialism and “a lack of accountability.”

And exactly what is the purpose of you mentioning this skewed form of inciteful demagoguery? Do you think that it is not insensitive or vindictive to present this self-serving, one-sided view, equating an Atheist's conditional belief with Atheist as human beings? Your only purpose seems to be to demean, marginalize, victimize, demonize, and create an inciteful environment of mistrust and resentment. It is cowardly to simply post one-sided studies and surveys condemning any group of people who choose not believe in the existence of a God(s). How about citing studies showing the level of educational achievements by most Atheists, compared to that of the Theist population?. How about the posting the 8% of Atheists that do actually claim they believe in God, or some Universal spirit? How about posting the surveys and studies that show Atheists representing only 0.1% of the prison population? In fact, in some prisons they are not represented at all. How about posting the humanitarian contributions Atheist and other secular organizations have done? Do the surveys explain WHY over 90% of all Atheists will turn to intuition, common sense, practical experience, and science for guidance on questions of right and wrong, and not religions? Do the surveys and studies show the practical contributions that secular communities have contributed to society? How about studies on the levels of Paedophilia in the Catholic Priesthood? How about listing the studies and tests that consistently demonstrate higher average IQ's among Atheists, than among Theists?

Although I personally believe that none of these things have anything to do with being an Atheist, but obviously many people like you do think so. Stoking the flames of egoism, elitism, religious intolerance and bigotry, should be beneath anyone with even an ounce of human dignity left. As Steven Weinberg stated,

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.".

Clearly this one-sided rant is only a poor attempt to save face and respect, for believing in any man-made adult fairy tale. Maybe this is why the young are targeted for indoctrination, before they have develop the cognitive abilities to defend themselves. The Atheist's slogan should read "Intellectual security breeds tolerance", and the Theist's slogan should read "Intellectual insecurity breeds Intolerance". Who are you to cast these kinds of aspersions towards Atheists? All this coming from a person that believes that all religions will eventually engage in "Kumbaya", because of the rants that a convicted criminal wrote in a prison. A person that has survived many assassination attempts by others wanting to become the Bab. A person that was kick out of many countries, because of trying to influence the politics of that government. A person who wrote a book about God with a more updated version of a Messenger to prove God's existence. Never again should you feign being victimized, or that we should only blame the source and not the messenger?

 

[shunyadragon]

And exactly what is the purpose of you mentioning this skewed form of inciteful demagoguery? Do you think that it is not insensitive or vindictive to present this self-serving, one-sided view, equating an Atheist's conditional belief with Atheist as human beings? Your only purpose seems to be to demean, marginalize, victimize, demonize, and create an inciteful environment of mistrust and resentment. It is cowardly to simply post one-sided studies and surveys condemning any group of people who choose not believe in the existence of a God(s). How about citing studies showing the level of educational achievements by most Atheists, compared to that of the Theist population?. How about the posting the 8% of Atheists that do actually claim they believe in God, or some Universal spirit? How about posting the surveys and studies that show Atheists representing only 0.1% of the prison population? In fact, in some prisons they are not represented at all. How about posting the humanitarian contributions Atheist and other secular organizations have done? Do the surveys explain WHY over 90% of all Atheists will turn to intuition, common sense, practical experience, and science for guidance on questions of right and wrong, and not religions? Do the surveys and studies show the practical contributions that secular communities have contributed to society? How about studies on the levels of Paedophilia in the Catholic Priesthood? How about listing the studies and tests that consistently demonstrate higher average IQ's among Atheists, than among Theists?

Although I personally believe that none of these things have anything to do with being an Atheist, but obviously many people like you do think so. Stoking the flames of egoism, elitism, religious intolerance and bigotry, should be beneath anyone with even an ounce of human dignity left. As Steven Weinberg stated,

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.".

Clearly this one-sided rant is only a poor attempt to save face and respect, for believing in any man-made adult fairy tale. Maybe this is why the young are targeted for indoctrination, before they have develop the cognitive abilities to defend themselves. The Atheist's slogan should read "Intellectual security breeds tolerance", and the Theist's slogan should read "Intellectual insecurity breeds Intolerance". Who are you to cast these kinds of aspersions towards Atheists? All this coming from a person that believes that all religions will eventually engage in "Kumbaya", because of the rants that a convicted criminal wrote in a prison. A person that has survived many assassination attempts by others wanting to become the Bab. A person that was kick out of many countries, because of trying to influence the politics of that government. A person who wrote a book about God with a more updated version of a Messenger to prove God's existence. Never again should you feign being victimized, or that we should only blame the source and not the messenger?

Again . . .

Long tedious Soap Box insulting rants are ignored!

From your posts I can see you are truly truly enlightened. I recommend you not play with matches.

 

[ecco]

but 'a woman formed from the rib of a man,' would be in conflict with science and natural methods.

But that is specifically what one of your Messengers said happened. Did the Messenger lie? If so how many other lies did he tell? How many other Messengers have lied?

Not my Messenger, maybe a mythological citation from the Bible. Not the Baha'i writings. I do not consider the scripture of ancient religions necessarily all from God. They include mythology and human insertions. Genesis is mostly mythology and questionable history. God did not write Genesis

• The Bible's Genesis states that Eve was made from Adam's rib.
• It is commonly accepted by theists that Moses wrote Genesis.
• Bahais have stated the Moses was a Messenger.

Your "opinion" is one thing. The official teaching of the Bahai religion seems to be something else. When I used the term "your Messenger", I was referring to the Bahai you. If your stated opinions on matters of faith are not from Bahai, then why do you list your religion as Bahai?

You apparently do not understand the Baha'i worldview concerning the different religions,

Well, let's see.
There is and has been only one God.
Over the Centuries, God has sent Messengers to earth to convey information to the people.
Over the Centuries, the Message has changed, not because God has changed, but because of the capabilities of the people to understand things in the context of their environments have changed.
Included in the list of Messengers are:

Adam, Noah, Krishna, Moses, Abraham, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, The Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh.
​

Is that about right?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am saying exactly as I wrote. The view reflects the Baha'i principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion. Religious scripture must be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge of science.



Yes, this is close to the prevalent view of Theistic Evolution (TE), I call it Theistic Naturalism.

From: Theistic evolution - Wikipedia

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.

From: Theistic Naturalism

“Theistic naturalism” is a term used to label an approach to divine action in which theistic belief is upheld but descriptions of events that invoke divine interference with the world are rejected.

So you choose to label The Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis, as created, started, or guided by God. Okay, which God is responsible, and how do you know? Either question will do.