Science and Atheism

[SusanDoris]

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

As you can see, I'm working my way through this topic. I'm sure you must realise that science does not, cannot, 'explain God' since there are zero observations to start with. It can, however, explain that all imagined ideas come from our evolved, human brains.

[torridon]

..

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. 

I don't see what fashion has to do with it.

A scientific understanding of the nature of life is not remotely consistent with ideas of spirits or reincarnation.  Science reveals life to be a process of replicating metabolism in line with the principles of energy and thermodynamics. Science reveals mind and consciousness to be rare emergent products of these biochemical  processes not the founding causes of them.  That ancient ideas persist into the modern age is more down to the nature of human culture and the psychological dispositions of their adherents rather than their viability as alternate science ideas. A 'supreme intelligence' defies logic, rather than mere science.

[Outrider]

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.

When people make various claims about the physical world - Young Earthers, faith healers, bleeding statues, miraculous healing powers of holy waters, historicity of Christ - those claims can be investigated.

The concept of gods is perhaps outside of science, but any claim of a divine influence on real life events is, presumably, within the remit of science. Even - though probably beyond our current science - purely mental experiences of the divine.

O.

[SusanDoris]

~Apologies for typing 'Outlook' instead of 'Outrider' in #49!!!

[Outrider]

~Apologies for typing 'Outlook' instead of 'Outrider' in #49!!!

It had already been changed by the time I got back here - but then, who doesn't like to have access to their e-mails

Probably only going to be around for a few days - filling in time waiting for baby #3 to arrive, he was due on the 3rd.

O.

[Maeght]

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.

Depends what those claims are of course.

[Maeght]

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?

It is because of science that we can see stars through a telescope. Nowhere in that statement does it say we can only see stars through a telescope.

[Sriram]

I don't see what fashion has to do with it.

A scientific understanding of the nature of life is not remotely consistent with ideas of spirits or reincarnation.  Science reveals life to be a process of replicating metabolism in line with the principles of energy and thermodynamics. Science reveals mind and consciousness to be rare emergent products of these biochemical  processes not the founding causes of them.  That ancient ideas persist into the modern age is more down to the nature of human culture and the psychological dispositions of their adherents rather than their viability as alternate science ideas. A 'supreme intelligence' defies logic, rather than mere science.

By fashion I meant trends. Most people in the world like to follow trends.  If people in the news have a certain thought process...many people tend to follow it. This is common.   Very few people think originally.

About 'logic'...we have discussed in another thread. Logic and reason are not absolute. There is nothing called 'logic' out there that we can use as an absolute yardstick.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Why is the microscope analogy being taken out of context?!  I used that as an example of a tool that is very useful for certain type of  investigations but is useless for certain others. You can also think of a hammer that is useful for certain functions but not for others. You can't use it everywhere.

Science is similar. It is a tool with its own boundaries, scope and limitations. Outside that, it is useless. So...insisting that science should investigate all personal experiences without which they have no veracity.....is over emphasizing the importance and capability of science.   

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

Why is the microscope analogy being taken out of context?!  I used that as an example of a tool that is very useful for certain type of  investigations but is useless for certain others. You can also think of a hammer that is useful for certain functions but not for others. You can't use it everywhere.

That does not come across in what you wrote which was 'you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope'.

[Sriram]

That does not come across in what you wrote which was 'you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope'.

What does it come across as...according to you?!

[Outrider]

Science is similar. It is a tool with its own boundaries, scope and limitations. Outside that, it is useless. So...insisting that science should investigate all personal experiences without which they have no veracity.....is over emphasizing the importance and capability of science.

The 'Science is a tool' analogy, though, is being pushed here as well. Science is a methodology, and whilst there are some things that are beyond the remit of science, certainly for the moment, there is an enormous swathe of human existence that is well within its remit; basically, anything that has a discernible effect on the world falls within the remit of science in principle, though there are complexities (for instance, within human thinking) that are beyond our current capabilities.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The 'Science is a tool' analogy, though, is being pushed here as well. Science is a methodology, and whilst there are some things that are beyond the remit of science, certainly for the moment, there is an enormous swathe of human existence that is well within its remit; basically, anything that has a discernible effect on the world falls within the remit of science in principle, though there are complexities (for instance, within human thinking) that are beyond our current capabilities.

O.

All true, I agree. We have though, I would suggest, to guard against any idea of science being anything other than an arbiter of fact, and since so much of our lives, indeed the most interesting parts for me, are not fact but subjective judgement, then be clear that science can never at base give us a reason to act in any particular way.

[SusanDoris]

It had already been changed by the time I got back here - but then, who doesn't like to have access to their e-mails

I wish I could still use 'Outlook for e-mails! I have got used to Windows Live Mail, but can't say I like it much!

Probably only going to be around for a few days - filling in time waiting for baby #3 to arrive, he was due on the 3rd.

Excellent news and what a lovely start to a New Year. Do let us know of his safe arrival.

[Maeght]

What does it come across as...according to you?!

It's obvious if you read that sentence on its own. Try it. ANd its not just me - or else you wouldn't have needed to have posted asking why people were taking it the wrong way.

[Udayana]

All true, I agree. We have though, I would suggest, to guard against any idea of science being anything other than an arbiter of fact, and since so much of our lives, indeed the most interesting parts for me, are not fact but subjective judgement, then be clear that science can never at base give us a reason to act in any particular way.

Is anyone here challenging that understanding?

Generally it seems to be those who think we have been supplied with some a-priori moral framework or purpose who insist we should or must act in one way or another, with or without free will.

I suppose there is the "this is natural so must be right" school and also the Sam Harris approach - but I wouldn't say that those are actually "scientific" or even consistent.

[Walter]

All true, I agree. We have though, I would suggest, to guard against any idea of science being anything other than an arbiter of fact, and since so much of our lives, indeed the most interesting parts for me, are not fact but subjective judgement, then be clear that science can never at base give us a reason to act in any particular way.

you are welcome to your subjective judgment , but not your own facts 

[Nearly Sane]

you are welcome to your subjective judgment , but not your own facts 

Indeed, again I agree but facts cannot at base be the reason for any decision unless you have already decided what you want to acgphieve, and that isn't a decision based on fact.

[Nearly Sane]

Is anyone here challenging that understanding?

Generally it seems to be those who think we have been supplied with some a-priori moral framework or purpose who insist we should or must act in one way or another, with or without free will.

I suppose there is the "this is natural so must be right" school and also the Sam Harris approach - but I wouldn't say that those are actually "scientific" or even consistent.

I think there are occasional posts here which stray in that direction. I have seen a number that state that 'all problems' will eventually be solved by science but my point was a general one, and something to borne in my mind by those who make the often false accusation of others of 'scientism' on here.

And while I agree with your opinion on Sam Harris, making the point still seems value because obviously Harris doesn't agree and again he is often cited with approbation on here.

[Walter]

I think there are occasional posts here which stray in that direction. I have seen a number that state that 'all problems' will eventually be solved by science but my point was a general one, and something to borne in my mind by those who make the often false accusation of others of 'scientism' on here.

And while I agree with your opinion on Sam Harris, making the point still seems value because obviously Harris doesn't agree and again he is often cited with approbation on here.

I'm sure Sam Harris can defend himself but for me , I like his honesty and his approach. Having said that I haven't read any of his books only watched many interviews and debates on YouTube, he seams to tell it like it is from what I can see.   

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sure Sam Harris can defend himself but for me , I like his honesty and his approach. Having said that I haven't read any of his books only watched many interviews and debates on YouTube, he seams to tell it like it is from what I can see.

There is much I agree with Sam Harris on, and much I disagree with. In this specific case, it's his idea that you can apply science to derive a morality rather than as I would approach it, that you can use science to get to moral outcomes, though even that has to be highly qualified, based on what your morality is.

[Walter]

There is much I agree with Sam Harris on, and much I disagree with. In this specific case, it's his idea that you can apply science to derive a morality rather than as I would approach it, that you can use science to get to moral outcomes, though even that has to be highly qualified, based on what your morality is.

Yes I tend to agree with much of that and you have caused me to , once again , to think about my own moral values as I tend to be somewhat leaning towards the psychopathic end of 'the scale' when I have taken online tests to evaluate myself.

I think it should be left to the philosophers and psychologists to attempt to use science (I don't know how they would do that because they are not scientists)to come up with some conclusions on deriving morality from a particular starting point.
Until we have a ToE , in the main philosophers will continue to 'split hairs'

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I tend to agree with much of that and you have caused me to , once again , to think about my own moral values as I tend to be somewhat leaning towards the psychopathic end of 'the scale' when I have taken online tests to evaluate myself.

I think it should be left to the philosophers and psychologists to attempt to use science (I don't know how they would do that because they are not scientists)to come up with some conclusions on deriving morality from a particular starting point.
Until we have a ToE , in the main philosophers will continue to 'split hairs'

I think it's up to us all to use the facts to determine how we want to achieve what we want but in the end it will be what we want. Despite posting a number of articles which are philosophically based, I don't have a lit of time for academic philosophy. How we think and how we examine what we each believe is much more important. We all "do' philosophy and that doing is in the end for me the most interesting of subjects.


Don't get me wrong, I find science in all its guises fascinating and crucial to what we understand of the world but its the subjective world of desires and wants that drive us.


As an aside on our discussion of facts vs opinions, I was just reading this on the impacts of ocean acidification and I think it illustrates that often it isn't that easy to untangle fact from opinion.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog?CMP=fb_gu


ETA just wanted to add that if I can cause someone to think or think again about something, that's brilliant. I take that as a huge compliment and it's not about people changing their mind but about having better understanding and reasons. I much prefer discussions where there are not simple dichotomies but an exploration of issues. We live in a time where even getting facts seems to be harder and harder, and any truth we might cling to is almost certainly an illusion

[Walter]

I think it's up to us all to use the facts to determine how we want to achieve what we want but in the end it will be what we want. Despite posting a number of articles which are philosophically based, I don't have a lit of time for academic philosophy. How we think and how we examine what we each believe is much more important. We all "do' philosophy and that doing is in the end for me the most interesting of subjects.


Don't get me wrong, I find science in all its guises fascinating and crucial to what we understand of the world but its the subjective world of desires and wants that drive us.


As an aside on our discussion of facts vs opinions, I was just reading this on the impacts of ocean acidification and I think it illustrates that often it isn't that easy to untangle fact from opinion.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog?CMP=fb_gu


ETA just wanted to add that if I can cause someone to think or think again about something, that's brilliant. I take that as a huge compliment and it's not about people changing their mind but about having better understanding and reasons. I much prefer discussions where there are not simple dichotomies but an exploration of issues. We live in a time where even getting facts seems to be harder and harder, and any truth we might cling to is almost certainly an illusion

re the link you provided ,

apart from the fact Delingpole is not qualified to make judgment on any scientific findings  the article just highlights that Ipso doesn't have a clue about such matters either and that is a danger in somuch that the general public become misinformed.

As you and I know science is not based on opinion but the general public don't know this . And so the confusion continues . Especially if the BBC has anything to do with it .

[Sriram]

I think it's up to us all to use the facts to determine how we want to achieve what we want but in the end it will be what we want. Despite posting a number of articles which are philosophically based, I don't have a lit of time for academic philosophy. How we think and how we examine what we each believe is much more important. We all "do' philosophy and that doing is in the end for me the most interesting of subjects.


Don't get me wrong, I find science in all its guises fascinating and crucial to what we understand of the world but its the subjective world of desires and wants that drive us.


As an aside on our discussion of facts vs opinions, I was just reading this on the impacts of ocean acidification and I think it illustrates that often it isn't that easy to untangle fact from opinion.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog?CMP=fb_gu


ETA just wanted to add that if I can cause someone to think or think again about something, that's brilliant. I take that as a huge compliment and it's not about people changing their mind but about having better understanding and reasons. I much prefer discussions where there are not simple dichotomies but an exploration of issues. We live in a time where even getting facts seems to be harder and harder, and any truth we might cling to is almost certainly an illusion

Nearly Sane....your 'other' perception of reality (whenever it surfaces) is commendable! 

Problem is that you tend to see-saw quite a bit and one cannot be sure which hat you are wearing at any point of time.    

Like the guy in your thread with his birds (mind of other animals...)....we cannot keep turning a blind eye to experiential reality just because we are doing science. We could develop a split personality. If anything, science has to accommodate or at least acknowledge the 'other' reality.

And that in essence, is what I am talking about in this thread (and in most other threads I think).