Science and Atheism

[Gordon]

Can it be used to examine such claims, Maeght?  After all, science is naturalistic, religion is - more often than not - non-naturalistic.  The rubbish written here by folk on both sides of the debate over the 'evidence' for God shows how little science is able to take part in the debate.

'Evidence' is naturalistic though, being an aspect of method: the basis for identifying, describing, categorising, measuring etc etc 'evidence' that is appropriate to whatever it is that is being studied.

You seem to be saying that there can be 'evidence' for the non-natural but, so far, the term 'evidence' applies only to the natural in methodological terms. So it seems incongruous to cite evidence on the non-natural without an alternative method that is specifically suited to non-naturalistic claims - and so far none has been proposed.

[Gordon]

Is it only because of science, wiggi?  How do we know that sages and wise men of old weren't able to see stars, etc. before telescopes appeared on the scene?  After all, didn't the ancients log the movements of the stars and other celestial bodies with only their unaided eyes?

Just those that are visible to the naked eye, obviously: for example, they had no notion of how many moons orbited Jupiter - that would have to await until the science of optic progressed.

[Hope]

And there goes another negative proof fallacy for the list 

No, Shakes, the ancients were able to track and study the celestial bodies long before the telescope was invented.

Then the mid-18th century Jantar Mantar, in Delhi, is referred to as 'an observatory without telescopes'.  Yes, part of its purpose was related to astrology, but it was also used as an astronomical observatory.

[Hope]

Just those that are visible to the naked eye, obviously: for example, they had no notion of how many moons orbited Jupiter - that would have to await until the science of optic progressed.

So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon.  They have helped, but never been the sole means.

[Gordon]

OK, Shakes, perhaps you could break the silence of 2000+ years and explain how science explains God?

Ironically you're begging the question here, by assuming the conclusion 'God'.

[Shaker]

I know exactly what begging the question means

So demonstrate that you know exactly what begging the question means.

I ask because you're a hopeless case with every other logical fallacy you deploy on an almost daily basis, so I've no high hopes in this instance.

I don't agree that my post was any more begging the question

Well of course you don't. You never agree that you've ever committed any logical fallacy of any kind, anywhere, ever, despite the fact that you do it constantly.

than any of yours

Provide examples/instances/evidence.

You won't. Obviously. How do I know? History. Experience. I ask you a question with the expectation of your backing up your assertions - especially with regard to what you assert are my assertions -; you run away, clam up and act as though the challenge never even existed in the first instance. That's because, while you're happy to spit out questions, allegations and assertions of your own, you're a woeful, snivelling and laughable coward when it comes to backing up those of yours. That's the way it has always played out, and the way it always will be with you and your kind. Always.

I thought I'd ask you to outline your means of using science to provide evidence for or against religion.  I understand that this has been being attempted for centuries, but so far without success.

Because that's a beautiful demonstration of begging the question - you know, that philosophical concept that you can't understand yet. Which is, I think, where we came in.

[Shaker]

So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon.  They have helped, but never been the sole means.

So before telescopes and more sophisticated (i.e. technologically advanced) means of scrutiny, "studying the stars" means "looking at the sky when it's dark", right? Lots of us do that, the more so if we live in comparatively rural areas with relatively little light pollution. Is this "studying", and in what sense?

[Gordon]

So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon.  They have helped, but never been the sole means.

Never said they were, but the scope for astronomical knowledge based on vision alone was, compared to today, clearly primitive. Of course the Christian church doesn't have a great historical record in accepting astronomical findings once science provided the means to understand a little better (ask Copernicus or Galileo)!

[Walter]

So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon.  They have helped, but never been the sole means.

Hope
 after constant daily batterings from 'the other side of the debate ' as you like to call it , what motivates you to carry on?
Even banging your head against a brick wall becomes painful after a while.

[Shaker]

Hope
 after constant daily batterings from 'the other side of the debate ' as you like to call it , what motivates you to carry on?
Even banging your head against a brick wall becomes painful after a while.

Not for the truly ivory-skulled.

[Jack Knave]

Hi everyone,

Atheism today seems to be inseparable from Science. Though there are some scientists who are also theists, most scientists are atheists. And it is also probably true that most atheists are  science enthusiasts. 

But this is a western phenomenon.  In India and other eastern, middle eastern countries, science has flourished in the form of astronomy and medicine.  Even genetics was not unknown in most parts due to which cross breeding of crops and animals was carried out commonly. But in spite of this, spirituality was always an integral part of life and efforts were always ongoing to understand the mind and the inner processes. No conflict was ever seen between scientific principles (Vigyan) and wisdom (Gyan). 

Vi- means 'specific' and gyan means knowledge. So Vigyan means specific knowledge, usually used to indicate science.  Whereas, Gyan means knowledge or wisdom pertaining to life principles. 

As I have mentioned in another thread, very often spirituality was itself treated as a science and methodical and systematic studies have been carried out in spiritual matters.... and many principles have been highlighted in Yoga and other systems.

Even in the west,  science was  not inevitably atheistic in earlier centuries. Many top scientists were agnostic, if not actually religious....including Newton, Darwin and Einstein.

Only in recent decades it has become fashionable to use science as a reason to hold atheistic views.

Scientific findings may conflict with certain mythology and beliefs, but they do not conflict with the idea of a spirit (Self), reincarnation, after-life or even a supreme intelligence of some kind. 

So...science and atheism don't necessarily have to go together unlike what some people seem to believe.

Cheers.

Sriram

But then science was at a nascent stage and so the conflict was not present or realised. Now we know a lot more and the conflict is therefore more apparent. In the end spirituality, whatever the definition of that is, is a personal matter not a collective one per se. So personally many scientists have used their trade to back up their atheist stance. The fact that many are "gathering together" to do this is probably neither here nor there and is no doubt some social, tribal thing - which is instinctual.

[Hope]

Hope
 after constant daily batterings from 'the other side of the debate ' as you like to call it , what motivates you to carry on?
Even banging your head against a brick wall becomes painful after a while.

You described yourself thus, Walter 

[Hope]

Never said they were, but the scope for astronomical knowledge based on vision alone was, compared to today, clearly primitive. Of course the Christian church doesn't have a great historical record in accepting astronomical findings once science provided the means to understand a little better (ask Copernicus or Galileo)!

The RCC, perhaps.  I've never been sure about the Orthodox.

[Nearly Sane]

The RCC, perhaps.  I've never been sure about the Orthodox.

No, Copernicus's work was attacked by most of the prominent members of the Reformation.

[Hope]

So before telescopes and more sophisticated (i.e. technologically advanced) means of scrutiny, "studying the stars" means "looking at the sky when it's dark", right? Lots of us do that, the more so if we live in comparatively rural areas with relatively little light pollution. Is this "studying", and in what sense?

The ancients seemed to write a fair amount about the stars and celestial bodies.  I acknowledge that in some parts of the world, the more important issue was astrology, but there are materials from Egypt, Babylon, Central America - among others.

[Shaker]

The ancients seemed to write a fair amount about the stars and celestial bodies.  I acknowledge that in some parts of the world, the more important issue was astrology, but there are materials from Egypt, Babylon, Central America - among others.

Nice for you I'm sure, but is not an answer to the question I asked. A "fair amount" of what?

[Hope]

No, Copernicus's work was attacked by most of the prominent members of the Reformation.

But his ideas were also supported by members of the Reformation like Erasmus Rheinhold.

[Hope]

Nice for you I'm sure, but is not an answer to the question I asked. A "fair amount" of what?

You asked "Is this "studying", and in what sense?", to which I responded in the way I did.  If you can't make the logical connection, ...

[Nearly Sane]

But his ideas were also supported by members of the Reformation like Erasmus Rheinhold.

and?  They were attacked by Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon amongst others. You implied it was only the RCC, for any one with even a basic knowledge of the development of science in the period of time, that is incorrect.

[Shaker]

You asked "Is this "studying", and in what sense?", to which I responded in the way I did.  If you can't make the logical connection, ...

... it's up to you to clarify exactly what meaning you intended.

[Gordon]

The ancients seemed to write a fair amount about the stars and celestial bodies.

Even so their scope for study was severely limited by their methodological limitations. Sure they recognised stars and came up with various permutations of constellations etc, and they recognised the detail of changing seasonal patterns with precision, but they had no understanding of the stars or galaxies, or distances or ages etc.

We do now, and will no doubt know more as the science supporting astronomy progresses.

     

[Hope]

Even so their scope for study was severely limited by their methodological limitations. Sure they recognised stars and came up with various permutations of constellations etc, and they recognised the detail of changing seasonal patterns with precision, but they had no understanding of the stars or galaxies, or distances or ages etc.

Is there any reason why you are so defensive about the prowess of modern science?

]You do seem very keen to dismiss ancient wisdom, Gordon.  Sadly, if it hadn't been for their interest, just how far would we have been by now.  Their role in our current place brings back the idea of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

[Gordon]

Is there any reason why you are so defensive about the prowess of modern science?

I'm not, just correcting your rosé-tinted view of antiquity that ignored the limitations of those times in terms of methods of acquiring new knowledge.

You do seem very keen to dismiss ancient wisdom, Gordon.  Sadly, if it hadn't been for their interest, just how far would we have been by now.  Their role in our current place brings back the idea of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

Yet more straw: for some reason you raised astronomy in antiquity. I didn't dismiss their contribution, as you wrongly suggest, but noted that this was unavoidably minimal given the limitations of those times.

Try reading for comprehension.

[Walter]

I'm not, just correcting your rosé-tinted view of antiquity that ignored the limitations of those times in terms of methods of acquiring new knowledge.

Yet more straw: for some reason you raised astronomy in antiquity. I didn't dismiss their contribution, as you wrongly suggest, but noted that this was unavoidably minimal given the limitations of those times.

Try reading for comprehension.

I think what is happening here is Hope knows he is loosing an intellectual battle with himself . Any  person reading this thread can see him unravelling and he knows it too. He says he was a school teacher and that requires a certain level of reasoning ability but what he displays here could be accomplished by a teenager

He is so full of dogma rather than knowledge he is incapable of letting go of it but internally he knows he should and that shows up in his daft remarks on here.

I feel there is little point in continuing in the same vain 'there are none so blind as those who will not see'

good luck Hope

[SusanDoris]

Yesterday, except for once briefly in the morning, I had, 'This page can't be displayed,' so did not see this topic. It is therefore very interesting to be able to read the OP calmly and admire the patience and skill of others'  arguments set out against it - really nice to see Outrider back, by the way - knowing that I can applaud from the sidelines.

Outrider,

I agree that science is a tool. But it is a tool with limited application and with clear boundaries. It cannot be used everywhere.

It certainly can be used anywhere, not only on this world but throughout the universe! Where it cannot be used is where there are zero observations on which to base a hypothesis.

As I keep saying....you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope.

I have never seen a scientist, or any other rational thinker, suggest that you can.