|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2006 : 23:42:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just to be clear, absolute or "scientific" or any other kind of certainty of god's non-existence is by no means a requirement of atheism. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it. It implies nothing about knowledge or certainty.
I don't actually disagree with this. By that definition, and it's as good as any I've heard, I am certainly an atheist.
Yet I think we all tend to use idiosyncratic definitions of terms for our own convenience when thinking.
The way I have used the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" is with the idea that an agnostic like myself definitely (and sometimes loudly) doe not believe in a Deity while, yet does not claim proof that he is correct. In my personal working definition, an atheist believes he has proof of the nonexistence of a God. Then I also think of agnostics as tending to be tolerant nonbelievers, while atheists sometimes tend to be similar to religious bigots in their zeal (as in the excesses of Soviet state atheism). And yes, I know that such categorization is in practice inexact in the extreme, but that's always a problem with the defining of words. (I apologize to any religously tolerant atheist who might be offended by my misuse of words. I doubt that most atheists are bigoted, particularly those present, just as I'm sure there must also be a few agnostics who are effectively bigots.) Such definitions are mainly for my internal mental use; the internal mental machine language of others may vary. I'm only defining my own use of the words here, to explain what I'd intended them to mean.
(Also, calling oneself an agnostic somehow carries much less of a social stigma than calling oneself an atheist, and I admit that I may be somewhat of an intellectual coward and hypocrite in preferring the former term to the latter.)
Very good discussion from both main viewpoints, people! : ) |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 01:44:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
Right. Sagan ("Demon Haunted World") noted (paraphrase) "Claims that aren't testable aren't very useful, since they contain little information." That's why the "God" questions aren't of scientific interest, or subject to scientific consideration (although some "True Believers" with scientific backgrounds insist on endlessly [and futily] whipping that dead horse, which isn't very surprising... human emotions, in some scientists just as in other people, drive many illogical, irrational, and otherwise pointless pursuits.)
This is exactly what I am talking about though and while I agree with Sagan in as far as a god such as Dave described, one that purposefully erases its tracks, I don't agree with the statement as Sagan puts it. He's sort of saying for people like creationists to quit trying to prove their god with science. Fair enough, but at the same time he's soft pedaling the fact that science has shown that a good proportion of Biblical claims are false. And that science can explain why people believe in gods that are strictly human inventions. By dismissing any scientific inquiry into god(s) one is also dismissing any interactive god(s). Yet most human gods by nature interact. So it is a dishonest dismissal intended to avoid the obvious fact science does indeed provide evidence that god(s) are not likely. (I say not at all but then we get into those absolute truth arguments and that isn't my point.) For example:
quote:
(at least scientists when they're being scientific) neither absolutely affirm nor deny anything. They leave wrestling with such practically meaningless esoterica to the theists (ad nauseum) and philosophers.
quote:
"The Sun might explode tomorrow"... I don't deny that's possible. But since there's no evidence suggesting it will happen, and much evidence suggesting the contrary, I see no reason to even bother considering it. In my opinion, the "God" questions fall in the same category.
As in god is about as likely as the Sun exploding tomorrow? |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 02:49:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The way I have used the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" is with the idea that an agnostic like myself definitely (and sometimes loudly) doe not believe in a Deity while, yet does not claim proof that he is correct. In my personal working definition, an atheist believes he has proof of the nonexistence of a God. Then I also think of agnostics as tending to be tolerant nonbelievers, while atheists sometimes tend to be similar to religious bigots in their zeal (as in the excesses of Soviet state atheism).
I would think that most atheists, while having a definite lack of belief in gods, wouldn't say that they have proof of god(s) non-existence. Attemping to prove a negative is generally futile, unless as pointed out by Dude, you can prove a mutually exclusive positive argument.
quote:
(Also, calling oneself an agnostic somehow carries much less of a social stigma than calling oneself an atheist, and I admit that I may be somewhat of an intellectual coward and hypocrite in preferring the former term to the latter.)
Here I think you've hit the nail quite firmly on the head. Most people don't like to rock the boat. Religion has pervaded our societies quite deeply over the centuries to the point where religions get an (unfairly IMHO) level of protection from "negative" arguments. These days I'm always happy to state my atheism, but if there are "sensitive" types about, I'm happy to openly suggest changing the subject for fear of hurting someone's feelings inappropriately, some times and places just aren't right. I won't deny my stance, but I won't force it on others if the social situation would indicate otherwise.
That's why we come to forums right? Everything's fair game!  |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 04:37:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
He's sort of saying for people like creationists to quit trying to prove their god with science. Fair enough, but...
I disagree, for this reason. What's going on is that the question of whether a god exists has never even managed to get far enough into the scientific process to be considered. The Biblical contentions and such you cite as having been disproven were just individual pieces of information that someone(s) may have wanted to use as premises to prove a god likely exists. To scientifically argue a conclusion, one must first validate the premises they intend to use as a basis for an argument, and only then can they argue that the conclusion logically follows from these premises, either deductively (only possible in math and symbolic logic, generally anyway) or inductively (always the case when considering empirical evidence, meaning verifiable to a high degree of probability.) Attempts have fallen into 2 categories- (type 1) They've never even managed to "get to first base" by verifying that their premises were factual or even likely, and thus have never even made it to the point of following up by constructing a logical argument, or (type 2) the argument was first proposed- and without even need to verify premises- it was deemed logically illegitimate (if I said something like "I have teeth" AND "Dogs have teeth" THEREFORE "I am a dog"... there would be no need to ask me to open my mouth and demonstrate that I have teeth, since my argument's nonsense so valid premises would prove nothing anyway.)
Nobody's ever suceeded in constructed a (necessarily) empirical argument that's even enabled science to get involved (meaning that's not of "type 2".) So proving or disproving their proposed premises wasn't actually done with any "god related" question in mind. Science was just addressing historical claims, and nothing more.
Likewise for explanations of belief in "man-made gods"... psychology etc. wasn't addressing a question of "a god"- only a belief. Much as when it was noted that schizophrenics in different cultures attributed their delusions (beliefs) of "having their minds controlled" to technological elements... psychology demonstrated that their delusions (beliefs) correlated to how highly-publicized and mysterious the technology was viewed as being in that region at that point in time (e.g. in 1960's Indonesia it tended to be nuclear power plants, in the United States of the 1980's it tended to be satellite dishes, etc.) Science wasn't actually considering whether nuclear power plants or satellite dishes were controlling people's minds... they were only considering an explanation for the nature of a belief (or delusion, if you will.) The same applies to the god beliefs as you cite.
quote:
As in god is about as likely as the Sun exploding tomorrow?
Given the known (deemed scientifically valid) physical state of the Sun, and the theoretically accepted (again, the term used in the scientific sense) mechanisms transpiring within it... with some imagination... a scenario where a set of conditions could be induced by which the Sun might possibly explode could probably be hypothesized... from that model, a probability could be quantitatively estimated that such a set of conditions would occur tomorrow. Thus, there would be an inductively testable hypothesis as to whether the statement "The Sun will explode tomorrow" could be verified or refuted, and thus be qualified (or disqualified) as a theory in the scientific sense of the word. The probability would surely be almost infinitesimally small (on the order of "ten to the minus one zillionth power" or somethin' :), so the proposed theory "wouldn't even come close" to being scientifically validated, but at least the hypothesis might "get to first base" as I described, and even to "second base"... meaning, we had a verified set of premises, and a hypothetical mechanism by which it could occur- constituting a logically valid argument - to even scientifically consider. So the answer would be an overwhelming "No"... but at least the question's scientifically addressable, thus, an answer could be determined.
In contrast, the "god questions" have all "struck out"... they're never made it to the point of being scientifically accepted as hypothesis worthy of consideration... they've never even met the minimum requirements of testability to enable application of the scientific method.
So from a scientific perspective, asking to contrast this "likelihood" is like asking "whether a randomly selected dog or a tree would more likely have a longer tail"... one species don't have tails at all (or at least such has never been documented) so the question doesn't qualify as being "scientifically addressable."
There goes my diatribe-free diet. Oh well :) |
Ron White |
| Edited by - ronnywhite on 01/16/2006 04:44:15 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 11:08:50 [Permalink]
|
Me:
quote:
That is a common misunderstanding. You can indeed prove a negative.
The way in which you do so it to demonstrate proof of a positive claim that is mutually exclusive of the positive tense of your negative claim.
Note to self: Proof read before posting.
Just to clarify....
You prove a negative by proving a mutually exclusive positive.
For example, you prove a positive that is mutually exclusive of the claim "god exists" and you will have proven "god does not exist".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 12:17:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
HalfMooner:
(Also, calling oneself an agnostic somehow carries much less of a social stigma than calling oneself an atheist, and I admit that I may be somewhat of an intellectual coward and hypocrite in preferring the former term to the latter.)
quote:
JohnOAS:
Here I think you've hit the nail quite firmly on the head. Most people don't like to rock the boat.
Sigh…
I choose to identify as agnostic because it most accurately describes my position on the god question. It is as simple as that for me…
I am also aware of the fact that I am an atheist as well. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. It is through my agnosticism that I am able to explain why I am also an atheist.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 13:37:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnOAS
...Here I think you've hit the nail quite firmly on the head. Most people don't like to rock the boat. Religion has pervaded our societies quite deeply over the centuries to the point where religions get an (unfairly IMHO) level of protection from "negative" arguments. These days I'm always happy to state my atheism, but if there are "sensitive" types about, I'm happy to openly suggest changing the subject for fear of hurting someone's feelings inappropriately, some times and places just aren't right. I won't deny my stance, but I won't force it on others if the social situation would indicate otherwise....
You have seen my point exactly! |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 13:44:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
.....
Nobody's ever suceeded in constructed a (necessarily) empirical argument that's even enabled science to get involved (meaning that's not of "type 2".) So proving or disproving their proposed premises wasn't actually done with any "god related" question in mind. Science was just addressing historical claims, and nothing more.
...
I hypothesize that any god(s) a human would be aware of would have to by nature have some interaction with the Universe and/or that person. And while one might argue that a god could have interacted in the past and is now gone, humans today claim their god interacts with them in the present; and some might claim a god only interacts with people directly through thoughts which might not be measurable, however, humans today claim their god acts and affects the outcome of events in a measurable way. THEREFORE, such a god should be detectable.
That is clearly one way in which science can look for god is it not?
I'll have to reply to the rest of your post later. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/16/2006 13:45:44 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 16:29:55 [Permalink]
|
RE Stigma yeah, that is absolutely right. So atheists are really just responding to a thinly-veiled social attack when dancing-around with theists employing this tactic.
beskeptical
The question you pose is either a special case or differently stated form of the same question which was asked by the author of the 2 Law of Thermodynamics thread. In that instance, it could be addressed because the terms used in the claim were defined specifically enough. As you have stated it, you leave the term god undefined. That which is undefined cannot be distinguished from randomness in the scientific sense. Your claim to be addressed is:
Believers say that god interacts with the world around them in specific ways, so science can prove that it is not acts of god, but rather randomness that they observe. Therefore, in doing so, science differentiates acts of god from randomness. It therein defines god.
The entire purpose of the scientific method is to distinguish randomness from the non-random. From a scientific viewpoint, without defining god your claim to be addressed reads something like:
Believers say that randomness interacts with the world around them in specific ways, so science can prove that it is not randomness, but rather randomness that they observe. Therefore, in doing so, science separates randomness from randomness. It therein defines randomness.
From this more general perspective, whether it is a god who covers his tracks etc. is irrelevant as this includes both time-dependant (dynamic) and time-independent (static) phenomenon, which the scientific method also can deal with.
Sooo- gotta adequately (specifically) define things. Then, maybe give it a try.
|
Ron White |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 02:15:12 [Permalink]
|
I have to return to my original point, ronny. That is we arbitrarily pick things which science is to exclude by defining them in ways that create criteria for science to exclude. Which religion do you know of that claims their god acts in random ways? Which religion do you know of that claims their god erases its tracks as the god Dave describes? So why are we changing the definition of any religion's god(s)? Is it just to claim then that science cannot investigate such matters?
This is one of the points I am trying to make. We say morals can't be tested with science. But that is only true for morals which one has not defined a value to judge by. Yet when in our minds we determine morality we have defined what we are judging by. Science cannot investigate the god hypothesis. Well religion does indeed define god(s) and what they supposedly do and what evidence is supposedly there. Most religions don't define their god(s) as some nebulous untestable thing. You claim prayer matters. Guess what, it doesn't have any significantly measurable effect according to the few studies that have been done. You claim the Earth is 6,000 years old and we appeared on it ready to go. Science certainly tackles that part of religion.
God by definition has to interact. God that doesn't interact isn't being a god in the usual sense. You interact, there's something to test. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/17/2006 02:16:19 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 02:26:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I have to return to my original point, ronny. That is we arbitrarily pick things which science is to exclude by defining them in ways that create criteria for science to exclude.
Do you really think it's "arbitrary" what most people exclude from scientific analysis, or do you think people just shy away from testing their religious beliefs for the same reasons you give psychics a free pass? You know, the whole "we shouldn't mess with what works for others," etc.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/17/2006 02:28:45 |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 03:31:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
This is one of the points I am trying to make...
...God by definition has to interact. God that doesn't interact isn't being a god in the usual sense. You interact, there's something to test.
You're right, and as such, they're always making tangible claims and attaching "That's God's doing!" to the end of sentences. The only thing amazing about any of it is that we manage to account for 99.99% of them with very worldly (and usually simple or straightforward) explanations, when probability theory would dictate we should only be able to hit on 99.9% of them (I'm joking, but not really by much.) We can't test for "divine input" though, only specifically defined conditions, like whether a tumor unexpectedly shrank (or a prayed upon lottery ticket hit) with science only being able say "cause unexplained" if it happens, not "God did it!" It's not that the scientific method is arbitrary... it's just that discriminating "divinity" (if it exists) from "randomness" ain't easy (in fact, it's so hard, some of us [like me] would say "Don't even bother with it.")
quote:
Which religion do you know of that claims their god erases its tracks as the god Dave describes?
Well, Dave definitely does a great job on SFN, but I wouldn't go so far as referring to him as "a god" (sorry... that's the second time you said it... I couldn't resist throwing that in this time :) |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 09:27:37 [Permalink]
|
I AM THE GOD DAVE AND I DEMAND THAT YOU ALL BOW DOWN BEFORE ME AND... OH, YOU'RE NOT LISTENING ANYMORE.
Seriously, Randi's Million-Dollar Challenge (for example) works the way it does for a reason: people will have no reason to agree that they don't have paranormal powers if the test isn't about the powers they claim to have. So as soon as a scientist define "god" in such a way as to make "god" disprovable, the believers will simply (and often correctly) state that they don't define their god in such a manner, so the argument against god is a strawman.
Which leads naturally to another question, beskeptigal: what is the point of having science disprove god in the first place? If it is to convince believers away from their beliefs, it ain't gonna happen (the old adage that says that you can't use logic and science against a belief which wasn't arrived at through logic and science has been proven time and time again). If the point is to give yourself or other atheists another reason to disbelieve in god, it isn't particularly strong (and mostly preaches to the choir, so to speak). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 09:34:03 [Permalink]
|
| If we didn't have people trying to show that certain ideas are crap, then I wouldn't be an atheist. I'd believe in astrology, faith healing and a whole lot of other nonsense. So, it makes no sense to me for someone to say that there is no point in trying to show that people can have faulty thinking. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 09:39:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
what is the point of having science disprove god in the first place?
There is no evidence to support the claim "god exists", therefore any attempt to "disprove" the claim is an attempt to "disprove" nothing.
Tilting at windmills, if you will.
And I'm with Dave_W on this one... you can't convince the vast majority of believers to change their views by using logic. They simply don't give a shit about it and will just accuse you of being bigoted. (personal experience talking, from dropping the old free will vs god argument on a bunch of really religious types)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
