Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that what I've read and heard about atheism isn't particularly grounded in science. It's more about the absence of evidence, rather than evidence of absence. Atheism seems as much a faith as any religious belief.
As absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, that would make atheism less of a faith position. It is not a faith position to dismiss unlikely claims such as miracles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
I hold a more agnostic view -- I simply don't know (although I actively speculate). I frequently note that many people just need religion in their lives, if only for social/cultural reasons.
So your speculation is sans evidence, yet it is atheism that seems faith based?
I agree that what I've read and heard about atheism isn't particularly grounded in science. It's more about the absence of evidence, rather than evidence of absence. Atheism seems as much a faith as any religious belief. I hold a more agnostic view -- I simply don't know (although I actively speculate). I frequently note that many people just need religion in their lives, if only for social/cultural reasons.
We are all 'agnostic': nobody really knows - not even those who believe they do. It is (of course) a sliding scale of probabilities of the god -claim based on (scientific) evidence. Science, when it comes up with explanations, shows no god involved. thus, the lack of evidence is actually science-based. the god -claim in fact depends on remaining 'gaps for God' for any argument at all, apart from faithbased science -denial.
Bottom line, 'agnosticism' actually logically mandates non -belief pending validation of the god -claim, and the debates have shown the apologetics intended to validate those claims don't stand up to scrutiny.
The only 'faith' that atheism needs to have is faith that science has more credible answers than religion.
The only 'faith' that atheism needs to have is faith that science has more credible answers than religion.
If you have 'faith' in scare quotes here because you don't mean religious faith but a reasonable belief based on the preponderance of evidence / logical argument / likelihood then I would agree.
Science of course does not always have the answers, and in a few matters is unlikely to ever have them, but then one simply sits with that rather than making up explanations because they are incapable of saying the magic words, "I don't know".
If you have 'faith' in scare quotes here because you don't mean religious faith but a reasonable belief based on the preponderance of evidence / logical argument / likelihood then I would agree.
Science of course does not always have the answers, and in a few matters is unlikely to ever have them, but then one simply sits with that rather than making up explanations because they are incapable of saying the magic words, "I don't know".
Correct and a salutary correction. Words like Faith Trust and belief can mean various things, especially when beginning with Capital Letters.The difference is like the difference between Micro and Macro evolution - the same, but different. So Faith, trust and belief can be based on good reason, poor reason or no good reason. That's why we have to decide whether - on evidence/results - we can trust science or not.
"Faith" is put in scare quotes when it is not the kind of faith without good reason - if one credits science or what we'd call good evidence and reasoning, as we've seen science - based information rejected in favor of the Bible even when the science - based evidence points away from it.
Or even when the Bible doesn't Appear to say what the faith says, like everyone hearing Jesus should have been dead by end 2nd c and the End as described in the gospels hadn't happened; the order of creation where day and night appears before the sun is made. Or Mary Magdalene has to fail to go into the tomb and rush off in a different direction to Mary and the others in order to ensure that she doesn't know what happened to Jesus.
This is taking Faith to a new level when not even what the Bible apparently says is true.
Say it again - I am truly thankful that I don't have to think with that kind of Faith.
Man hasn't been around that long to thing about it.
Man is around now to study the early universe (as observing the cosmos equates to looking back in time) and look for 'exceptions' to (or violations of) the known laws of physics. None have been found. Ignorance of reconciling Newtonian physics and quantum physics continues to exist, but that's a separate matter
Man is around now to study the early universe (as observing the cosmos equates to looking back in time) and look for 'exceptions' to (or violations of) the known laws of physics. None have been found. Ignorance of reconciling Newtonian physics and quantum physics continues to exist, but that's a separate matter
It's the 'Faith' in science again. Sometimes twitted by the Bible apologists as 'science hasn't got an answer, but claims that it will in the future.'
Which is also what Bible apologetics does at times - 'Evidence could turn up one day that will upset science'.
But that is with less reason, as the Bible once did look like it had the answers, and science was done by Believers (yes, even Darwin was at first) who wanted to understand God's methods.
But the method turned out to work without a god needed at all (1) and whether the great scientists of old were "Creationists" or not (as apologists have tried to argue) what they found upset the creation model. Material science came to explain everything known without a god being needed.
Thus the materialist appeal to a natural/material explanation if and when it is found being the go -to hypothesis is logically and evidentially based (materialist default) and the Theistian appeal to the answer for sure validating God (never mind which one) is not logical or evidence - based, never mind the desperate appeal to some evidence turning up to refute all and every science that questions or undermines the Bible.
We (and I cannot suppose it's only I) know that theist apologetics of that kind only works in the heads of Theist apologists because they has a Faith in a god (and usually a specific one) that is the basis for an argument that something will pop up to prove what has been losing the argument all this denialist time. It must be why they think that the appeal to unknowns works for them as well as the reason why they can never be rational and can never see or understand why Faithbased apologetics can never be rational.
(1) the story of Leverrier and napoleon is overdone grossly but a great atheist parable and makes the point well
Napoleon (the original and still the best) was interested to see the working model of the solar system (orrerey) made by Leverrier (possibly). After observing the planets orbiting with a clanking noise, Napoleon remarked "I see you haven't put God in there."
"My model had no need of him Sire."
not Leverrier,Laplace
the story goes like this:
Laplace presented his definitive work on the properties of the solar system to Napoleon. Napoleon, liking to embarrass people, asked Laplace if it was true that there was no mention of the solar system’s Creator (i.e God) in his opus magus. Laplace, on this occasion at least, was not obsequious and replied, “I had no need of that hypothesis.”
In fact, i think that version is even better. But one just loves the mechanical contrivance.
Regrettably, 'Respectful Atheism' is no longer available at the Amherst, NY B&N. I'm sitting at that bookstore's cafe as I type this, having braved some unexpected snow to make it here, and I can report that I won't be able to pick up where I left off in that volume. The silver lining is that the book's absence indicates a probable purchase, though there's also a chance it was pulled from the shelves due to a lack of chain-wide sales. I talked to a worker once when I saw her purging the shelves of underperforming titles, and apparently this practice is periodically dictated by corporate.
In its stead I've picked up 'We of Little Faith' by fellow upstate NY atheist Kate Cohen. It's a good read so far, classified as a philosophy book, but more of an informal collection of personal reflections. Genre distinctions are permeable, anyway
Regrettably, 'Respectful Atheism' is no longer available at the Amherst, NY B&N.
Is it really about ‘respectful atheism’ or self-respect, as a whole, relative to how we treat theists (and other folks as well). It’s a matter of common decency and acceptance.
Is it really about ‘respectful atheism’ or self-respect, as a whole, relative to how we treat theists (and other folks as well). It’s a matter of common decency and acceptance.
I read maybe 20 pages of the book before its disappearance, so I can't answer any questions regarding its scope
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
