What does science have to say about atheism? [Spirituality & Religion]
https://news.yahoo.com/physicist-marcelo-gleiser-science-does-not-kill-god-090100672.html
61-69, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Marcelo Glazer is certainly a scientist (as a lot who are also religious), but not certainly the voice of Science.
In his article (and book) he is completely entitled to make personal faith based assertions.
But he is not doing Science when he does it.
Let´s take a look on some of his own words there.
"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method,"
Because...
"Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against."
This may be true if and only if you, without any bias, may also say:
"Religion is inconsistent with the scientific method,"
"Religion is a belief in belief. So you categorically assert something you have no evidence for."
And both claims put together mean:
"Science is not at all about God, haves no bussines in deny nor in validate religious believes in God himself, its not Science´s object, scope or purpose."
"What IS part of the domain of Science is the task and full right to found from dubious to false some or all the narratives that religions give about the description of the material natural Universe.
Wich IS (that description) the bussines of Science"
"As an example, to say: Dembski creationist Mathematics is, in terms of Mathematics, insanable wrong (said by Dave Wolpert, the author of the No-Free Lunch Theorems, on wich Dembski later made his math invalid propositions)
And so and the same the Physics and Biology entailed"
In his article (and book) he is completely entitled to make personal faith based assertions.
But he is not doing Science when he does it.
Let´s take a look on some of his own words there.
"Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method,"
Because...
"Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against."
This may be true if and only if you, without any bias, may also say:
"Religion is inconsistent with the scientific method,"
"Religion is a belief in belief. So you categorically assert something you have no evidence for."
And both claims put together mean:
"Science is not at all about God, haves no bussines in deny nor in validate religious believes in God himself, its not Science´s object, scope or purpose."
"What IS part of the domain of Science is the task and full right to found from dubious to false some or all the narratives that religions give about the description of the material natural Universe.
Wich IS (that description) the bussines of Science"
"As an example, to say: Dembski creationist Mathematics is, in terms of Mathematics, insanable wrong (said by Dave Wolpert, the author of the No-Free Lunch Theorems, on wich Dembski later made his math invalid propositions)
And so and the same the Physics and Biology entailed"
View 31 more replies »
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 You are being ignored if you can't stay on topic.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]You were the one that brought up life on Saturn not me[/quote]
Yet another of your lies.
[b]You[/b] first mentioned Saturn... around 6 hours ago, if you'd care to scroll back up and have a look.
Yet another of your lies.
[b]You[/b] first mentioned Saturn... around 6 hours ago, if you'd care to scroll back up and have a look.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]if you can't stapy on toic[/quote]
Then stop trying to drag in your obsessive claim that there is life on Saturn
Then stop trying to drag in your obsessive claim that there is life on Saturn
celine211 · 22-25, F
Well if your a scientist and it an atheist ita kinda stupid reaĺly cause you can't deny the existing of something just because you haven't seen it
Now believing in it is another thing tho that's faith.
Now believing in it is another thing tho that's faith.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@celine211 You can't understand so I who completely understands is dense? Now that is funny!!!!
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
Not every scientist is an atheist. And, to be clear, this physicist isn't literally making a commentary about "atheism." He's really looking at a pattern of arguments that atheists make about god vs science.
It's a valid perspective.
His perspective is that the factors that would have impacted abiogenesis, based on what we know currently, hints at, but does not prove, the involvement of something extra-natural.
So while science cannot prove the existence of a god, it cannot also be used to say that the existence of a god is impossible.
That's all.
It's not a new idea to be honest.
It's a valid perspective.
His perspective is that the factors that would have impacted abiogenesis, based on what we know currently, hints at, but does not prove, the involvement of something extra-natural.
So while science cannot prove the existence of a god, it cannot also be used to say that the existence of a god is impossible.
That's all.
It's not a new idea to be honest.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@CharlieZ The funniest thing about all of this is that he can't even understand his own article. Gleiser is an astronomer, for fuck's sake. He's got a time machine, he's [b]literally[/b] looking billions of years into the past every time he's in an observatory.
But hippie maintains that we can't know what happened in the past because we weren't there 🙄
When Gleiser says that science can answer questions up to a point, that point is literally light years further than where hippie thinks it is.
But hippie maintains that we can't know what happened in the past because we weren't there 🙄
When Gleiser says that science can answer questions up to a point, that point is literally light years further than where hippie thinks it is.
HoraceGreenley · 56-60, M
LeopoldBloom · M
It says nothing one way or the other. Stephen J. Gould proposed "non-overlapping magisteria" to describe the realms of science and religion. Science does not prove nor disprove religion, and religion does not lead to scientific discoveries.
However, many (though not all) scientists are atheists, because for thousands of years, religion provided the answers to many basic questions. But starting several centuries ago, mostly Christian and to some degree Muslim scientists began making rigorous observations of the world and testing them under controlled conditions. This led to an explosion of scientific knowledge, where previously teleological explanations ("God wanted it that way") were replaced with mechanistic ones ("this is how it works"). So "God" was not needed to explain everything anymore, and religion became correspondingly less important.
Also, the Protestant Reformation broke the power of the Catholic Church in Europe, allowing people to develop a personal rather than an institutional relationship with God. Ironically, this allowed people to have [i]no[/i] relationship with God. The Muslim world has not had a similar reformation, which is why the practice of Islam is generally much stronger in those countries than Christianity is in Europe and the U.S.
However, many (though not all) scientists are atheists, because for thousands of years, religion provided the answers to many basic questions. But starting several centuries ago, mostly Christian and to some degree Muslim scientists began making rigorous observations of the world and testing them under controlled conditions. This led to an explosion of scientific knowledge, where previously teleological explanations ("God wanted it that way") were replaced with mechanistic ones ("this is how it works"). So "God" was not needed to explain everything anymore, and religion became correspondingly less important.
Also, the Protestant Reformation broke the power of the Catholic Church in Europe, allowing people to develop a personal rather than an institutional relationship with God. Ironically, this allowed people to have [i]no[/i] relationship with God. The Muslim world has not had a similar reformation, which is why the practice of Islam is generally much stronger in those countries than Christianity is in Europe and the U.S.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
Bagalamaga · 56-60, M
Bagalamaga · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 he says the same thing i just said in a sentence. You have to understand that science works on looking behind god. If there is a god,what is it? It’s not a bearded man in the sky or a jewish guy who got nailed to a cross. That much is certain
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Bagalamaga At least you made it part way through the article. too bad your bias is too strong to grasp what was said in the article.
Bagalamaga · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 well,when he was asked about what does he think about creationism,his answer was: religious people think science kills god,atheists are bashing religions with scientific answers..that well rounded answer should give you a clue about this article
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
Not particularly. This is aimed at the evangelical atheists who inhabit this site spewing their lines of nonsense about science and what it proves. @ArthurP
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul Actually I do. Too bad you don't. Have fun with Celine.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Here's a hint - "up to a point".
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
Nothing. It's dead.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP [quote]cuz atheism is alive and kicking![/quote]
Nope. It's in the grave where it belongs. As long as your alive, you believe in some type of god and have faith in that god. The one true God is Yahweh, who lives forever and was never created by man. All other gods are created by men and will soon die out.
Nope. It's in the grave where it belongs. As long as your alive, you believe in some type of god and have faith in that god. The one true God is Yahweh, who lives forever and was never created by man. All other gods are created by men and will soon die out.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@GodSpeed63 That’s dumb, dude 🤷♂️
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 46-50, M
@GodSpeed63 which brings us back to the question, why do I have to block so many bratty SWeeps
