I Have Something to Say

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”

― David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence?"

There's no requirement to do so. There is a requirement to demonstrate a compelling necessity to postulate its existence... and this has not been done.

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?

'Why' isn't a valid question... there's no reason to ask it.

Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?

The universe isn't 'fine-tuned'...I'd be happy to itemise (right here) the fallacies that lie behind that particular creationist myth. When talking about life, do you mean life as we see it? Define 'life'.

Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?

Scientists will accept evidence-based reasoning. Got any?

Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good?

You just said that you can't define 'good'... so you're saying here that secularism hasn't provided something that you can't define.

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences?

There is academic rigour, there are standards of evidence, and there is peer-reviewed transparency... I can see why the religious would recoil from such things.

Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?

Religious belief demonstrates its own irrationality, independently of scientific criticism... science simply doesn't care

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?

Would you care to define 'scientific atheism'? How is it distinguished from atheism?