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
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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"
1-25 of 34
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, I´ve read the article.
But never mind his believes and neither his well known merits as a Scientist, he is nothing more tan an individual and not the voice od the scientific community.
(BTW, NEITHER was Dawkins in the opposite "corner").
And, again.
What Glazer said is partially true.
There is no prove that God don´t exists in terms of scientific method.
But an honest scientist MUST say also:
"And neither is a prove that God exists in terms of scientific method."
Thus, where is the conflict?
There is one when a religious narrative makes asserts about the natural world that are in contradiction with scientific knowledge.
SOME people NEEDS to believe (as an example) in Design in order to also believe that God exists.
Other people may be atheist OR NOT atheists at all, but have NO NEED to also believe in what collides with Science about the material Universe.
That´s all the point.
But never mind his believes and neither his well known merits as a Scientist, he is nothing more tan an individual and not the voice od the scientific community.
(BTW, NEITHER was Dawkins in the opposite "corner").
And, again.
What Glazer said is partially true.
There is no prove that God don´t exists in terms of scientific method.
But an honest scientist MUST say also:
"And neither is a prove that God exists in terms of scientific method."
Thus, where is the conflict?
There is one when a religious narrative makes asserts about the natural world that are in contradiction with scientific knowledge.
SOME people NEEDS to believe (as an example) in Design in order to also believe that God exists.
Other people may be atheist OR NOT atheists at all, but have NO NEED to also believe in what collides with Science about the material Universe.
That´s all the point.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, thank you.
But still...
I took a pair of significative lines textually quoted from the article.
And commented them from my point of view.
Please, tell me, if you are so kind.
What is wrong of what I´ve specifially said?
Do you say I quoted them badly, not his words?
Are they taken out of a (scientific) context (what would mean that he says later what I´ve also said here)?
Please tell me what, in a scientific perspective (and no other) is specificaly wrong?
But still...
I took a pair of significative lines textually quoted from the article.
And commented them from my point of view.
Please, tell me, if you are so kind.
What is wrong of what I´ve specifially said?
Do you say I quoted them badly, not his words?
Are they taken out of a (scientific) context (what would mean that he says later what I´ve also said here)?
Please tell me what, in a scientific perspective (and no other) is specificaly wrong?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 The absense of evidence don´t proves the inexistence of something and neither validates it´s existence.
I am NOT saying at all that the inexistence of God is proved, because it´s not.
But I say that some intents to prove his existence with the mere appearance of scientific, logic and math resources went wrong (in terms of science, math and logic).
So the "virtual" debate between the positions of Glazer and let´s say Dawkins are, from both sides, out of science matters and merely philosophic.
And the scientific career or both, even if brilliant, is totally irrelevant about THIS.
But both Glazer and Dawkins, as both scientists, have a common field: the nature of the material world.
Where (from a scientific perspective and alien to their respective believes about religion) some claims are validated and others not.
So, about the natural world, oppinions that need to adress extra scientific sources about Nature as a condition to believe or reject God are irrelevant to science as a not necessary assumption.
And belong only to personal faith.
I am NOT saying at all that the inexistence of God is proved, because it´s not.
But I say that some intents to prove his existence with the mere appearance of scientific, logic and math resources went wrong (in terms of science, math and logic).
So the "virtual" debate between the positions of Glazer and let´s say Dawkins are, from both sides, out of science matters and merely philosophic.
And the scientific career or both, even if brilliant, is totally irrelevant about THIS.
But both Glazer and Dawkins, as both scientists, have a common field: the nature of the material world.
Where (from a scientific perspective and alien to their respective believes about religion) some claims are validated and others not.
So, about the natural world, oppinions that need to adress extra scientific sources about Nature as a condition to believe or reject God are irrelevant to science as a not necessary assumption.
And belong only to personal faith.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ What I believe is not the point of the article and what ever my opinion is it is not germane to this thread any more than anyone else's opinion. The discussion is about the foolishness of eliminating what we don't know because we are so vain and refuse to admit 'we don't know'.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Ok.
True.
And I say, same as to assert what we don´t know because we are so vain and refuse to admit 'we don't know'.
No science related proof on neither side.
Agree?
But THAT specifically about the existence or not of God.
And says nothing about the nature of the Universe, which is the object of Science.
True.
And I say, same as to assert what we don´t know because we are so vain and refuse to admit 'we don't know'.
No science related proof on neither side.
Agree?
But THAT specifically about the existence or not of God.
And says nothing about the nature of the Universe, which is the object of Science.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Your question is rethorical.
Did you post an article that says, textually:
"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."
And my comment were, that, if those words are true, it´s also true that:
"Religion is inconsistent with the scientific method,"
"Religion is a belief in belief. So you categorically assert something you have no evidence for."
May you focus and answer that?
Did you post an article that says, textually:
"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."
And my comment were, that, if those words are true, it´s also true that:
"Religion is inconsistent with the scientific method,"
"Religion is a belief in belief. So you categorically assert something you have no evidence for."
May you focus and answer that?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Yes.
That a scientist like Glazer, if talking from a scientific perspective (and it´s asociated intelectual honesty) should have said that the same is valid both sides.
If he don´t, he is being (you choose) or malitious or intellectually biased.
Of course that may not apply to a mere personal oppinión on armchair philosophy.
But if he is pressented as a scientist, he should accomplish certain ethical standards about.
Or not to mention scientific method at all.
That a scientist like Glazer, if talking from a scientific perspective (and it´s asociated intelectual honesty) should have said that the same is valid both sides.
If he don´t, he is being (you choose) or malitious or intellectually biased.
Of course that may not apply to a mere personal oppinión on armchair philosophy.
But if he is pressented as a scientist, he should accomplish certain ethical standards about.
Or not to mention scientific method at all.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 [b]Their merit if they don´t.[/b]
But I DO hear a LOT of evangelical religionist say that we should necessarily agree with anticientific descriptions of the natural world as a requisite to believe in God.
And to bring the personal religious believes of individual scientists as if their scientific work validates their oppinions outside the scientific scope.
But I DO hear a LOT of evangelical religionist say that we should necessarily agree with anticientific descriptions of the natural world as a requisite to believe in God.
And to bring the personal religious believes of individual scientists as if their scientific work validates their oppinions outside the scientific scope.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ I guess you missed the point of the article. Raising questions and proposing ideas is scientific. Proving such allegations is also scientific. However when you can not disprove you can not eliminate.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Raising questions and proposing ideas [b]drawn from the available evidence[/b] is scientific
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 Nope. If you limit your line of inquiry only from what you think you know you have missed 99.999999% of available knowledge since your own knowledge is so very very very limited. If we followed your ideas we would still be divining bones to find cures for ailments. After all we 'know' that that works but microscopes and germs and antibiotics ..... We don't know about them.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Incoherent babble
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 Only to dullards like you. Everyone else understands it.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 If you limit yourself to what you know you might as well be a witch doctor. Closed minds aren't open to new ideas.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Try limiting yourself to reality, avoid convenient fictions, and stop trying to fool others... that way you might be able to avoid fooling yourself.
1-25 of 34