Tell me why my personal belief is wrong

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science agrees that it cannot say that god/s exist or not. Atheists and skeptics sometimes say that science shows there are no god/s. That goes beyond science and is a religions belief, not based on what science is capable of telling us but on preconceived ideas.

That is because science requires humans and there are different beliefs about what that means.

 

[Brian2]

That is because science requires humans and there are different beliefs about what that means.

Does that mean that the naturalistic methodology in science might change to a naturalistic metaphysic if a consensus could be said to have been reached amongst scientists that science shows that there are no god/s?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does that mean that the naturalistic methodology in science might change to a naturalistic metaphysic if a consensus could be said to have been reached amongst scientists that science shows that there are no god/s?

Well, yes. And yet no. We are already there as there are in effect different philosophies of science and more that the 2 you referenced.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If people are snarky, or rude or don't bother then no i don't listen or reply nicely either.

Who was being "rude" or "snarky"?

Is it "rude" or "snarky" to point out that in order show a belief to be wrong, one would have to deal with evidence?

Is it "rude" or "snarky" to point out that if you admit to not care about evidence, that your question can't be answered and becomes a meaningless question?

 

[Brian2]

Well, yes. And yet no. We are already there as there are in effect different philosophies of science and more that the 2 you referenced.

Is it the case that those different philosophies of science would not include a philosophy that said that science is discovering the way God has set things up and has done things? Or would that philosophy be allowed in science?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God created the matter and energy and physical processes and God created the stars and gallaxies and the earth etc in that way

Physical processes don't require any "creation". They automatically, necessarily, happen due to the nature of the space-time continuum.

Secondly, that's moving the goalposts. It's essentially a god of the gaps. Trying to stuff him into gaps that science hasn't filled yet.

Tomorrow physicists might explain where energy came from and then you'll move your god further back, again without evidence, as the creator of "those things". And then still claim that god created energy by association.

I fail to see the merit of such an exercise.

and I believe also in a more personal and hands on way.

The evidence does not support this belief. Au contraire.

Science looks at the physical side of things

Is there another side of these things?
If yes, what is it and how can you show that that side is actually real?

and comes to conclusions and atheists and skeptics look at the conclusions of science and reach further conclusions which go beyond what science has the capacity to say.

Such as?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it the case that those different philosophies of science would not include a philosophy that said that science is discovering the way God has set things up and has done things? Or would that philosophy be allowed in science?

Well, honestly, it is properly not possible because of all the different versions of God. So we would end with different philosophies of what God is, but that is where we already are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I pointed out the conclusions of atheists and skeptics from the science go beyond what science can provide

Yes, you claimed this before. You have yet to inform me what those supposed conclusions actually are.

so those conclusions and religious personal type beliefs no matter how much you want to say otherwise.

That's not really a coherent sentence.
I assume you mean that there is no difference between these mysterious "atheist and skeptics conclusions" you keep claiming exist, on the one hand, and the "religious personal beliefs" of theists on the other?

Is that correct?

Well, we'll see about that once you actually come through with the claim concerning these mysterious "conclusions" you think "atheists and skeptics" come up with.

However, previously you seemed to have said that these mysterious conclusions you keep referring to, can be dismissed at face value since they aren't scientific or supported by evidence. Now you say they are on par with the "personal religious beliefs"? I guess that means those can be dismissed at face value for the same reason?

Or are we also going to engage in some special pleading here?

And looking at some things that the James Webb space telescope is coming up with and looking at the history of science, how do we know that scientific conclusions are definitely right when it comes to many parts of science?

Science doesn't deal in absolute certainties.
All scientific explanations are provisional by nature.
The door is always left open for future evidence to show the explanations incorrect or incomplete.
No matter how mega established the theory is and how unthinkable it might seem that such evidence would ever be found.

However, that doesn't mean that the explanations of science are on par with bare assertions that have no evidence whatsoever. Not even with mere "educated guesses".

We know that relativity is fairly accurate, because GPS works.
We know atomic theory is fairly accurate, because nukes explode.
We know evolution is fairly accurate, because transitional fossils are found by prediction and the collective of DNA falls in the exact distribution pattern that evolution predicts would have to exist.

Science is very much results based.
And it builds on previous findings also.
Einstein was building on the findings of Newton and by doing so, discovered shortcomings. That's how he came up with relativity.

OR the scientific (empirical evidence) path to truth might get us there in the end but we might only be 5% of the way down that path and we may have gone down side tracks which science has no way of getting out of in some areas of science.

This is incorrect and history is a witness to that.

It's religious beliefs that tend to get stuck in a "wrong path" because religion has no mechanism to get out of it. In fact, such mechanisms are not welcome in religions because religious are about maintaining "the faith". About keeping the status quo. Religion loses its relevancy when it is shown to be wrong.

Think about it. What incentive does the Vatican have to try and disprove christianity? If they succeed in doing so, they literally lose their raison d'être. Even if the vatican leaders would KNOW christianity is false, then still they would want to keep that a secret. Because people believing christianity is correct, is LITERALLY their bread and butter.

Contrast that with a scientist. The raison d'être of a scientist does NOT consist of upholding the status quo. Of "defending the belief". Instead, it is to do research and zero in on truth. Build models of phenomenon of reality and then try to disprove them.

In science, results are results. Positive or negative. Either way: you learn something.
If you develop a model to explain phenomenon X and during testing the model gets disproved... then you just learned something. You gained deeper understanding of the problem. You can now further refine your model or replace it all together. In that sense every "failure" is a success in its own right.

As the infamous Lawrence Krauss quote says:

Science is not in the business of proving things. It is rather in the business of DISproving things. When as a scientist you design a test for your hypothesis... you don't design that test to try and prove it correct. No. Instead, you design your test to try and DISPROVE your own idea.

As such, science has a built-in mechanism to weed out false ideas and only keep those that are in sync with the actual evidence. And we'll call that "accurate". Because what does it mean for an idea to be "accurate", if not "it matches the evidence of reality"?



Having said all that.... consider, in light of all this, also how wrong it is to try and equate / compare "science" with "religion". This is an incorrect comparison.

Science is a METHOD of inquiry. It is not an idea / hypothesis / theory by itself.
Religion however, IS. Religion is NOT a method of inquiry. Instead, a religion is an idea, a "hypothesis".

Science provides the tools by which hypothesis are to be tested and evaluated.
Religions doesn't have such tools. Or such a method.
The "method" of religion is rather limited to "here are the bare claims, now believe them. period."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It's religious beliefs that tend to get stuck in a "wrong path" because religion has no mechanism to get out of it. In fact, such mechanisms are not welcome in religions because religious are about maintaining "the faith". About keeping the status quo. Religion loses its relevancy when it is shown to be wrong.

...

You can't show wrong through observation, because that is brain dependent. The same with relevancy. That is in you and not independent of you.

You confuse observation with other processes in your brain. There I said it.
Wrong has no brain independent referent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That can be said about any ideas which affect the actions of people, including any philosophies and ideologies.

Off course.

But the topic is religion.
More specifically the accuracy thereof and how the accuracy can be evaluated, if at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science agrees that it cannot say that god/s exist or not. Atheists and skeptics sometimes say that science shows there are no god/s.

Who are these atheists / skeptics?

I don't think I've ever met one.

That goes beyond science and is a religions belief, not based on what science is capable of telling us but on preconceived ideas.

Sure. To an extent.

Let's test it.

Would you agree to the following claim?

Undetectable dragons do not exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Off course.

But the topic is religion.
More specifically the accuracy thereof and how the accuracy can be evaluated, if at all.

No, because you combine science and morality, yet you only claim science.
We are playing is ought.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science cannot make a check on fictitious things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science cannot study fictitious things.

Correct, but that doesn't make the belief in them wrong. That is morality in the end.

 

[Brian2]

Physical processes don't require any "creation". They automatically, necessarily, happen due to the nature of the space-time continuum.

That is a guess. There is no known nature of the space time continuum at the Big Bang, if that happened.

Secondly, that's moving the goalposts. It's essentially a god of the gaps. Trying to stuff him into gaps that science hasn't filled yet.

Science does not replace the need for God when it finds a physical mechanism for a process. So the advance of science does not mean that God is pushed aside.
You seem to think that science is going to fill gaps that it is not possible for science to fill. Science cannot say there was no creation or that life originally came from dead matter and verify it. It is educated guessing which is based on the presumption that God did not do it.
Atheists and skeptics want to set up their own Gap theory, the Science of the Gaps, in which natural processes without God are insinuated into all the gaps that science has not filled yet and which God specifically said that He did.

Tomorrow physicists might explain where energy came from and then you'll move your god further back, again without evidence, as the creator of "those things". And then still claim that god created energy by association.

I fail to see the merit of such an exercise.

Hypotheticals are only wishful thinking on your part.

The evidence does not support this belief. Au contraire.

As I said, physical mechanisms for how things happen does not take away the need for God. This is more the case with made up physical mechanisms which presume no God.

Is there another side of these things?
If yes, what is it and how can you show that that side is actually real?

There is the spiritual side of things and I can show it in ways that science does not accept, because science will only consider physical mechanisms. Any mechanism found is automatically natural and so physical.

Such as?

Such as the beginnings of life and consciousness. The scientific presumption is that it is not spiritual and so life and consciousness is therefore defined in physical ways.
So an atheist and skeptic looks at it and says that all the evidence points to life only being physical in nature and without the need for it to come from pre existing life.
But the atheist and skeptic cannot or don't want to see that the scientific conclusions are based on a presumption and not on evidence. iow science has to call life chemistry because science is not able to find and analyse spirit.
The atheist and skeptic conclude against the spiritual because of the presumptions of just physical in the science. It's circular reasoning really.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Correct, but that doesn't make the belief in them wrong. That is morality in the end.

"Since we do not know, it is God" is a lame argument, at least as far as I am concerned.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Since we do not know, it is God" is a lame argument.

It is a lame argument to you. But you are not all humans and neither am I.

 

[Brian2]

However, previously you seemed to have said that these mysterious conclusions you keep referring to, can be dismissed at face value since they aren't scientific or supported by evidence. Now you say they are on par with the "personal religious beliefs"? I guess that means those can be dismissed at face value for the same reason?

I'm just pointing out that neither you nor I can say we know, so we both believe, and your beliefs are based on the scientific presumption of no spiritual or God and atheist and skeptics forget that presumption and say "Look at what science says" as if it has to be 100% true.

Science doesn't deal in absolute certainties.
All scientific explanations are provisional by nature.
The door is always left open for future evidence to show the explanations incorrect or incomplete.
No matter how mega established the theory is and how unthinkable it might seem that such evidence would ever be found.

However, that doesn't mean that the explanations of science are on par with bare assertions that have no evidence whatsoever. Not even with mere "educated guesses".

We know that relativity is fairly accurate, because GPS works.
We know atomic theory is fairly accurate, because nukes explode.
We know evolution is fairly accurate, because transitional fossils are found by prediction and the collective of DNA falls in the exact distribution pattern that evolution predicts would have to exist.

Science is very much results based.
And it builds on previous findings also.
Einstein was building on the findings of Newton and by doing so, discovered shortcomings. That's how he came up with relativity.

OK great, it still does not mean that the presumption of no spiritual and no God is correct.

This is incorrect and history is a witness to that.

It's religious beliefs that tend to get stuck in a "wrong path" because religion has no mechanism to get out of it. In fact, such mechanisms are not welcome in religions because religious are about maintaining "the faith". About keeping the status quo. Religion loses its relevancy when it is shown to be wrong.

Think about it. What incentive does the Vatican have to try and disprove christianity? If they succeed in doing so, they literally lose their raison d'être. Even if the vatican leaders would KNOW christianity is false, then still they would want to keep that a secret. Because people believing christianity is correct, is LITERALLY their bread and butter.

Contrast that with a scientist. The raison d'être of a scientist does NOT consist of upholding the status quo. Of "defending the belief". Instead, it is to do research and zero in on truth. Build models of phenomenon of reality and then try to disprove them.

In science, results are results. Positive or negative. Either way: you learn something.
If you develop a model to explain phenomenon X and during testing the model gets disproved... then you just learned something. You gained deeper understanding of the problem. You can now further refine your model or replace it all together. In that sense every "failure" is a success in its own right.

As the infamous Lawrence Krauss quote says:

Science is not in the business of proving things. It is rather in the business of DISproving things. When as a scientist you design a test for your hypothesis... you don't design that test to try and prove it correct. No. Instead, you design your test to try and DISPROVE your own idea.

As such, science has a built-in mechanism to weed out false ideas and only keep those that are in sync with the actual evidence. And we'll call that "accurate". Because what does it mean for an idea to be "accurate", if not "it matches the evidence of reality"?

OK science is good at what it does and we all gain by the fruits of science and sometimes lose by the mistakes of science.
I'm just pointing out that because of the presumptions of science we can't take everything that science says at face value without looking at the presumptions it uses.
If you want to be an empiricist that is up to you.

Having said all that.... consider, in light of all this, also how wrong it is to try and equate / compare "science" with "religion". This is an incorrect comparison.

Science is a METHOD of inquiry. It is not an idea / hypothesis / theory by itself.
Religion however, IS. Religion is NOT a method of inquiry. Instead, a religion is an idea, a "hypothesis".

Science provides the tools by which hypothesis are to be tested and evaluated.
Religions doesn't have such tools. Or such a method.
The "method" of religion is rather limited to "here are the bare claims, now believe them. period."

So, I did not say religion is like science. But some beliefs in what science might say are based on forgetting the presumptions that science has used in it's analyses.

 

[Brian2]

Off course.

But the topic is religion.
More specifically the accuracy thereof and how the accuracy can be evaluated, if at all.

That applies to evaluating the accuracy of any philosophy or ideology.
The topic is what we make it.
The argument is irrelevant.

 

[Brian2]

Who are these atheists / skeptics?

I don't think I've ever met one.

You need to get out more.

Sure. To an extent.

Let's test it.

Would you agree to the following claim?

Undetectable dragons do not exist.

No
By undetectable what is really meant is undetected.
Anyway you asked "Who are these atheists/skeptics?" above and it seems that you cannot see that you are one of these atheists/skeptics who wants to say that God does not exist because science has not found god/s.