Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

You have to consider God to believe in God. I can only speak for myself but in my experience belief in God is absolutely rational from both a subjective and objective perspective. The mistake many atheists make imo is in having rejected a specific idea of God they cannot allow themselves conceive of another. This results in a retreat into scientism and the belief that if science cannot prove God then God cannot exist. If you reflect on what all the major mystical traditions tell us, starting with Hinduism the oldest of the major religions, you see the same theme that "God is not part of nature, God is the reason for nature".

Atheists don't retreat into scientism. Instead, atheists maintain that there is no evidence for God, whether that evidence is scientific, historical, or otherwise.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

There was certainly no arrogance intended, but if it came to a choice I would always favor unintended or perceived arrogance over ignorance. I clearly said my opinion on the question is based on my own experiences. Talk about pot and kettle, calling people's opinions "rubbish" is the height of both arrogance and ignorance but work away.

My apologies for my injudicious language , you are correct it was not needed.

If it was based on your own experience I would have no problem , but from that experience you went on to extrapolate a ''world view '' that went on to tell us that mistakes that atheists are making.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

Atheists don't retreat into scientism. Instead, atheists maintain that there is no evidence for God, whether that evidence is scientific, historical, or otherwise.

Are you speaking for all atheists:)
Are you claiming that scientism does not exist or it exists but atheists do not hold this worldview? If the latter then the atheists I am personally familar with are clearly dissimilar to your experience.

In the words of Thomas Burnett which I heartily endorse "Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) which cannot be verified or falsified by science. It is, in a word, unscientific".

nagirrac

Jernal wrote: »

In my experience of people, they come in all flavours. Saying a person was never a true Fianna Fail supporter, or a true spiritualist, or a true atheist is kind of completely misunderstanding people. There are no true persons. You can generalise them but each time at the back of your mind must be that idea that every generalisation has limitations.

I would agree with this. In answer to both marienbad's criticism of my post and your comment however, I would emphasize the "many atheists" phrase in my post. Again, based on my own experience, I encounter far more examples of scientism from atheist acquaintances and friends than I do from any other individuals. The fact that "some" atheists argue their worldview is not influenced by scientism is, in my view, evidence of their own confirmation bias.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

I would agree with this. In answer to both marienbad's criticism of my post and your comment however, I would emphasize the "many atheists" phrase in my post. Again, based on my own experience, I encounter far more examples of scientism from atheist acquaintances and friends than I do from any other individuals. The fact that "some" atheists argue their worldview is not influenced by scientism is, in my view, evidence of their own confirmation bias.

So unless they agree with your view they are wrong ?

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

I would agree with this. In answer to both marienbad's criticism of my post and your comment however, I would emphasize the "many atheists" phrase in my post. Again, based on my own experience, I encounter far more examples of scientism from atheist acquaintances and friends than I do from any other individuals. The fact that "some" atheists argue their worldview is not influenced by scientism is, in my view, evidence of their own confirmation bias.

Well obviously those people aren't atheists.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

So unless they agree with your view they are wrong ?

Not at all, I agree with what seems to be the concensus atheist opinion on many topics, secularism, abortion, etc. The primary argument I have with some atheists (the ones I know personally and some on this forum) is how much their worldview is influenced by scientism.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Not at all, I agree with what seems to be the concensus atheist opinion on many topics, secularism, abortion, etc. The primary argument I have with some atheists (the ones I know personally and some on this forum) is how much their worldview is influenced by scientism.

To be honest nagirrac I don't even know what you mean by that.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

Not at all, I agree with what seems to be the concensus atheist opinion on many topics, secularism, abortion, etc. The primary argument I have with some atheists (the ones I know personally and some on this forum) is how much their worldview is influenced by scientism.

By 'scientism', do you mean 'the world around us'?

Gumbi

nagirrac wrote: »

Not at all, I agree with what seems to be the concensus atheist opinion on many topics, secularism, abortion, etc. The primary argument I have with some atheists (the ones I know personally and some on this forum) is how much their worldview is influenced by scientism.

ROFL. Explain.

nagirrac

joseph brand wrote: »

By 'scientism', do you mean 'the world around us'?

No, I mean the view that science is the only source of real knowledge, or "putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture".

nagirrac

Gumbi wrote: »

ROFL. Explain.

Explain what? I need to know what needs clarity before I can try to explain anything.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I mean the view that science is the only source of real knowledge, or "putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture".

That depends on what you mean by ''real knowledge''.

MrPudding

Wrong forum. Sorry.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Atheists don't retreat into scientism. Instead, atheists maintain that there is no evidence for God, whether that evidence is scientific, historical, or otherwise.

Whatever about generalisations, some atheists do "retreat" into scientism, just like some atheists think that there is evidence for a god (albeit not sufficient evidence to convince them).

For an example of the former, check out the likes of Peter Atkins or Alex Rosenburg. The difference is that atheist like these don't consider the term "scientism" to be pejorative in nature.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

The biggest change would be the whole happy clappy, I love Jesus, he is awesome, which, quite frankly, makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

There is much in your post to disagree with. But I found this to be a most curious statement. I'm struggling to understand why you would throw-up at the whole "happy clappy" bit?

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I mean the view that science is the only source of real knowledge, or "putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture".

Ah this old charge again.

Ok, can you answer me this. If scientific study is not the only source of "real" knowledge about the world around us, why are these other methodologies that give as good results as the ones science currently accepts, not themselves included in the scientific method (making the point moot)?

Science has an issue with us having too much accurate information about the world around us?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok, can you answer me this. If scientific study is not the only source of "real" knowledge about the world around us, why are these other methodologies that give as good results as the ones science currently accepts, not themselves included in the scientific method (making the point moot)?

Science has an issue with us having too much accurate information about the world around us?

I am criticizing scientism, not science. Scientism is a belief system and as such has no place in science. Unless you believe that the only valid form of human inquiry is via the scientific method. I am not aware of anyone who does not welcome scientific advancement, but you have to distinguish that from those who seek to convince people using science to embrace a godless, materialistic universe.

Gumbi

nagirrac wrote: »

I am criticizing scientism, not science. Scientism is a belief system and as such has no place in science. Unless you believe that the only valid form of human inquiry is via the scientific method. I am not aware of anyone who does not welcome scientific advancement, but you have to distinguish that from those who seek to convince people using science to embrace a godless, materialistic universe.

If you accept that scientific inquiry is a reasonable format to learn about the universe around us, and if you accept it leads to accurate conclusions, and teaches us more and more about the world every day, then the onus is on you to propose another, better system.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Unless you believe that the only valid form of human inquiry is via the scientific method.

Again, if there are methodologies that produce accurate models of the world around us that do not fall into the scientific method, why are these methodologies excluded from being incorporated into the scientific method.

If they work why would science wish to exclude them, why not simply incorporate them, thus increasing the amount of knowledge gained through science?

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not aware of anyone who does not welcome scientific advancement, but you have to distinguish that from those who seek to convince people using science to embrace a godless, materialistic universe.

You haven't answered my question. You haven't even attempted to answer my question.

Zombrex

Gumbi wrote: »

If you accept that scientific inquiry is a reasonable format to learn about the universe around us, and if you accept it leads to accurate conclusions, and teaches us more and more about the world every day, then the onus is on you to propose another, better system.

And to explain why that other equal or better system isn't part of the scientific method in the first place.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

Are you speaking for all atheists:)
Are you claiming that scientism does not exist or it exists but atheists do not hold this worldview? If the latter then the atheists I am personally familar with are clearly dissimilar to your experience.

In the words of Thomas Burnett which I heartily endorse "Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) which cannot be verified or falsified by science. It is, in a word, unscientific".

No atheist subscribes to scientism as defined by Christian apologists. Nobody familiar with common definitions would claim, for example, that mathematical theorems, or an enjoyable book, or right and wrong are measured scientifically. Even Sam Harris's book "The Moral Landscape" isn't a work of scientism.

Instead, the most you can say is atheists subscribe to empiricism, which is the idea that knowledge about the external mind-independent world can only be obtained through the senses. Even this is a tenuous claim. Many atheists, such as myself, only adopt it on an operational level, and would be instrumentalists or metaphysical nihilists. Then there are the atheists who don't believe in God, but believe in homeopathy and all sorts of unscientific claims.

The difference between what motivates a theist and an atheist isn't found in abstract metaphysical world-views. It is instead found in the answer to the question "Is there evidence for God?"

nagirrac

Gumbi wrote: »

If you accept that scientific inquiry is a reasonable format to learn about the universe around us, and if you accept it leads to accurate conclusions, and teaches us more and more about the world every day, then the onus is on you to propose another, better system.

I am not arguing that scientific inquiry is not the best means we have to study the natural world, it is not only the best means, it is the only means. What I am arguing against is extending science into other areas of human inquiry where it may not be as useful. As for "accurate conclusions", the most basic requirement for something to qualify as science is that it's conclusions may be false.

Math, logic, philosophy, morality, law, literature, art, etc. are not scientific subjects and should be afforded the same respect as science, in particular when considering public policy. How could morality for example ever be reduced to the scientific method?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

You haven't answered my question. You haven't even attempted to answer my question.

Your question is not related to the point I am making about scientism (see my response to Gumbi). Clearly you think I am making an argument against science which I am not. I am making a point about extending science into other means of human inquiry.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Your question is not related to the point I am making about scientism (see my response to Gumbi). Clearly you think I am making an argument against science which I am not. I am making a point about extending science into other means of human inquiry.

What are those other means of human enquiry ? You keep positing an either or kind of argument.

Are you saying that science can tell us nothing about art literature beauty or what ?

Gumbi

nagirrac wrote: »

Your question is not related to the point I am making about scientism (see my response to Gumbi). Clearly you think I am making an argument against science which I am not. I am making a point about extending science into other means of human inquiry.

Like what? Explain.

And by the way, I think an argument can be made that maths is scientific - not that it's relevant anyway.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

No atheist subscribes to scientism as defined by Christian apologists. Nobody familiar with common definitions would claim, for example, that mathematical theorems, or an enjoyable book, or right and wrong are measured scientifically. Even Sam Harris's book "The Moral Landscape" isn't a work of scientism.

The difference between what motivates a theist and an atheist isn't found in abstract metaphysical world-views. It is instead found in the answer to the question "Is there evidence for God?"

I agree the term can be used as dogma, as in "scientism is the claim that only science can lead to truth". When I think of scientism it is in terms of 1) affording science a stronger voice in public policy than it perhaps deserves, and 2) using a scientific evidence argument in the "is there evidence for God argument". In this respect I believe certain atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, are displaying scientism.For example Harris in "Free Will" uses the scientific evidence from the Libet experiments to argue against free will and concepts of objective morality. I would hate to base our social policy on a set of scientific experiments that may be falsified a year from now.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

What are those other means of human enquiry ? You keep positing an either or kind of argument.

Are you saying that science can tell us nothing about art literature beauty or what ?

Explain to me how we can apply the scientific method to morality?

As I said above, math, logic, philosophy, art, literature, music, etc. are not pursued using the scientific method.

Gumbi

nagirrac wrote: »

Explain to me how we can apply the scientific method to morality?

As I said above, math, logic, philosophy, art, literature, music, etc. are not pursued using the scientific method.

First define morality. And before we go on, propose another system different to science with which to investigate it.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Explain to me how we can apply the scientific method to morality?

As I said above, math, logic, philosophy, art, literature, music, etc. are not pursued using the scientific method.

How about you answer a question now and then instead of always asking a new one.

Whatever about maths - of course art literature etc are not pursued using the scientific method, no one is saying they are , that is not to say that science cannot not tell us something about them but that is for another day.

So what is your point ? Are positing the notion that some people operate on the level of science/scientism to explain every human experience or what ?