Do Internet Atheists Have Anything New To Say?

Post Reply New Topic

makuranososhi, If I can butt in, I can think of a concrete early example of science promulgating a healthy scepticism in its teachings.

One of the first things you learn is the scientific method which is by definition a system to tear apart someones scientific claims. Use of that was demonstrated to me in grade 7 when we tested the hypothesis of caloric value of various materials, especially food.

Flame, liberally applied to the material in question, results in a net heat that exceeds that of the flame alone.

Some awesome sceptic student said "Yeah, but we dont have a bunsen burner in our guts", and the experiment was conducted again with hydrochloric acid, which is in our stomachs. It was pretty obvious that the net heat of acid plus immersed food exceeded that of the acid or food alone.

Yes, science wishes to be an authority, but it is willing to earn it. The scientific method is both a tool to police claims and a method of consensus.

Religion has nothing equivalent.

How about, "Technology develops like a weed, except in that it will be missed if it disappears."?

Technology is the way we hominids survive. We get our food using tools, we defend our bodies using tools, we find out how the world works using tools.

ruveyn

Sure. It is very nice when you have it, but you sure do miss it when it's gone.

Kinda like retinas.

To be more accurate, technology is the implementation of useful observations.

The atheists are saying what they always have been saying. There is not an iota of objective empirical evidence for the existence of God or the gods. Not a scintilla. Not a bit. Not any.

The fool sayeth in his heart there is no god. The atheist sayeth out loud there is not evidence for the existence of god.

ruveyn

PLENTY of times in fact. Not onlt have I seen more scientific demonstrations than I can remember, I see science at work Every Single Day. If it werent for science and technology(applied science) we wouldnt be having this conversation in the first place!

As far as science "requiring faith in our senses", that sounds a lot like postmodernism which falsely promulgates that truth is relative, logic is invalid, and the only thing reliable way to understand anything is with intuition(subconscious pattern recognition).

In reverse order...

Hal: Science DOES require faith in the sense; we can only quantify that which we can measure. Logic is valid; I just do not believe it is absolute. And I do not believe that intuition gives understanding to much of anything; at best, leaps of intuition provide insight and a next step to proceed upon. I did not question whether you had seen science in action, but how much of the grand scheme have you witnessed? How much is inferred upon other observations and indicators? We're only as aware as we can take in.

reuvyn: Again, religion and spirituality are domains of faith; they do not seek proof inherently, but generally seek to explain and soothe, lead and influence. The absence of proof is not proof of absence, however... one might take that more to heart from a scientific approach. Many discoveries took a leap in ability to observe before they could be made. That said, there is more manipulative mythology and superstition in most (if not all) religion than I can stomach.

Fuzzy: I never argued against the validity of science or the power of observation; I get the feeling as I read these responses that my posts were either taken out of context/selectively read, or I did a piss-poor job of expressing myself. ! ! This is not aimed at you, more a general observation. Science is willing to change as the ability to observe and define increases; that is one of the reasons I respect it so much. Science wishes to become a refined authority; religion tends to define the authority and seek to appease it. I guess I'm confused, because I never once implied that religion had an equivalent process.

Sand: My question to you focused on the basis of faith in science and religion; not religion's frequent conflicts with what is currently known about science. Belief doesn't make one right... how many centuries were spent with the Earth as the center of the universe, based on what observations were possible at the time coupled with dogma? There are still scientists who deny the Big Bang theory of the universe; while it refines, it is still imperfect. Both -still- require belief and faith.


M.

Faith is defined as belief without substantiation. What belief does science demand without substantiation? All science acts on the assumption that nature exhibits regularity that can be observed and repeated. That assumption is not faith as it is subject to validation and in all instances it has been validated.

No, that is your definition. Looking up faith, I find "complete trust in something or someone" and "a strongly held belief or theory" - the religious application is but one. Science has been found to be in error time and time again as the ability to observe has been developed further, showing deeper insights. I'm sorry, Sand, but I feel we are arguing at cross-purposes as you are preloading my words with context they are not encumbered by.


M.

That assumption that nature will continue to exhibit the regularity that it has previously must be taken on faith. There is no observation that can possibly prove it.

Belief in the results of science also requires a belief in the validity of the thoughts of the human mind. Note that I didn't say the human brain -- only through science do we know that we think with our brains.

We also have to trust that our senses are reasonably reliable (that we are not a brain in a vat or something), and that mathematics is consistent (since so much of science is written in the language of math), and in the validity of the thought processes in other people's brains, as well as the common scientists' general honesty (since so much of science is a collaborative process and is built on what was previously discovered).

If we don't believe in all of these things, then we can't believe in science, and none of these things can be proved by science, since they form the basis of the scientific method. So they have to be taken on faith.

If you dont believe in such things, despite the REGULARITY of the results they produce than you are clearly out of touch with reality. You didnt answer my question Anacalgon about WHAT truth is...... You claimed that my statement about truth requiring verification is self-negating if the statement itself cannot be verified. Please JUSTIFY your answer. Our senses can play tricks on us, but logic does NOT. If religious/spiritual beliefs do not produce perceptable results than WHAT use are they other than philosophical abstractions???

Regularity is perceived and sometimes inferred. But is it really there independent of human observation. Are the dots connected in nature or is it us connected the dots we perceive?

ruveyn

Science isn't a single monolithic thing, but a general method of finding things out. Science has made errors before (the 'aether', which was supposed to be the medium through which light was transmitted, for example), and appears to be making errors now (string theory, despite an incredible lack of success, is the only orthodox branch of theoretical physics).

Do you believe in quarks? Have you ever seen a quark? Do you believe in viruses? Have you ever seen a virus? You haven't, and no scientist ever has either. You might say that scientists have seen viruses in electron microscopes. And they have. But you have to accept the basic principles behind science, as well as the scientific theory of electron microscopes in order to believe what the electron microscope says. They didn't see the virus, they saw evidence of the virus. They didn't see it directly, they saw it through a machine -- so if you believe in viruses, you have to believe in the workings of that machine.

I don't think a faith in science (especially in the scientific method, as opposed to an individual scientific theory) is at all unjustified. But you can't say that a belief in science requires no faith.

Truth... is still subjective, I'm afraid. We can rely on the observations of science for a great many things, as there is a regularity and observable pattern, but it is not absolute truth - it still is prone to error or manipulation. All things in life require faith, even if it only the faith that one's god exists or that science has all the answers. Personally, I prefer science with a healthy dose of skepticism for even what seems to be most right to me... but that's just my perspective.


M.

No sir, the fault was mine. Hmm. I'm trying to quell a cola habit and havent slept, so thank you for your patience. My thinker is not at its best.

If I went to my grandma and asked her(and I have) if global warming is a fact, caused by man, she would say no. In her experience of 87 years, the climate is cyclical. If I ask mister Sand here the same, he would wonder why I would even doubt. He is 83 I believe.

Without an exercise in rationality, I would have to rely on faith and trust one of these two. I *think* thats what you are getting at. Trust in someone elses observational experience and character.

Now if I asked my grandmother if there is a god, she would say "Dont be daft, of course there is!", but mister Sand holds an entirely opposite opinion. Again, I have to trust one over the other, but in this case, its a matter of faith, as neither likely has any empirical knowledge in the matter.

The problem is that when I place my trust and faith in a religious authority, then I am expected to trust him in all matters. If I choose to believe his word on Noah and the flood, then he'll be discomfited over my lack of enthusiasm for the biblical story of creation.

On the other hand, if I tell a climatologist that I am not entirely convinced that evolution unfolds the way that Dawkins thinks, I havent mocked his personal expertise, and while he might think I am a fool, we are not at an impasse in discussing the weather.

The pope wants me to believe it all. A scientist only wants to convince me of the truth of his speciality. And if I dont believe him, I have a chance, however far fetched, of proving him wrong.