I believe in Atheism...

[Boozy]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess. From that guess a scientist creates a "fact."

I think you skipped a few steps. For a hypothesis to become a theory or a fact, there is a process. This process involves observational and experimental evidence and inductive reasoning. The scientific method is brutally strict.

What you have implied in the above quote is that "facts" are just science's best guess. That is not true. No astronomist, for example, would have said "It is a scientific fact that Pluto is a planet." Instead, they would have said, "Our best research to date has led us to classify Pluto as a planet." The problem here is that many people do not see the difference between the two statements. In the scientific world, there is all the difference in the world.

Part of the problem is that the general public is often exposed to science solely through the capitalist system. Someone who wants to sell his book called "Why milk will kill you" is going to claim that he uses scientific "facts" to prove his hypothesis. He may even have a PhD. And then when the scientific community rightfully comes forward and says, "He has no evidence!" we see it as the scientific community disagreeing with and contradicting itself. When in reality, there was really never any conflict at all.

[Rapscallion]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess.

More of an observation than a guess, for proper science.

How many times has science been wrong?

Aproximately as often as science has admitted that it was initially mistaken, but now has a better understanding of the world.

Is Pluto a planet or not?

That's a reclassification. It's still a large lump of rock discovered by scientific means (noting changes in the orbits of other large lumps of rock caused by gravity).

Is milk good or bad for you?

No idea, but it's damned tasty!

Will a butterfly flapping its wings in England really cause a poor little girl from Kansas to kill a pair of witches?

Be a bugger to observe that in a lab. Sounds more like fiction, though.

The battle between Ideology/Religion/Beliefs and Science will never end. Even Des Cartes gave up eventually.

CH

The difference for me is that science is willing to change its mind based on observed and tested evidence. Religion/Beliefs/Ideology is ... fixed.

Rapscallion

[crashhelmet]

The problem with science is it always starts with a guess. From that guess a scientist creates a "fact."

How many times has science been wrong?

Is Pluto a planet or not? Is milk good or bad for you? Will a butterfly flapping its wings in England really cause a poor little girl from Kansas to kill a pair of witches?

The battle between Ideology/Religion/Beliefs and Science will never end. Even Des Cartes gave up eventually.

CH

[Slytovhand]

Hey Flyn. I can deal with magic etc being real/part of natural existence.

Not so sure that 'if it exists, scientific analysis will prove it". I'd sort of like to think that there won't be a lot that we won't get, but I still think the human mind just can't grasp a lot of things. Can't just break everything down to neat little bite-size components.

I also agree about this god creature that ALSO erases evidence of it's existence... yeah - silly. And silly humans for even thinking it... totally absurd! And dinosaur hoaxes....

I will say that emotions are, by their very definition, irrational. Emotions and rationality are two different kettles of fish - they are apples and oranges. Yep - real, have effects, but totally irrational. For that matter, it's rationality that needs to override emotions in many or most circumstances. Not even remotely suggesting we suppress them - rather, we should learn to deal with them in a more sensible way... (whatever that may end up being).

Back to science and it's method. I just thought of something that is a very day to day thing, yet science is still at a bit of a loss over (in one sense...) - death. Sure, easy to talk about physical death, and what causes it, and all the metabolic breakdowns etc... but what is it?.

Also - have to disagree massively about "it is the only sensible method of thought that can fully understand ANY aspect of reality". Let's see... peace. Ever felt it? Sure, science can tell you all about the chemicals involved, the brainwave patterns, and a whole stack of other things.. but there is no way that science, by bringing it down to such evaluations, that it actually understands this aspect of reality. And there are a stack more... I'd even say all of human existence (and, no doubt, any other intelligible existence).

And I will burst forth with such joyous relief that the very foundations of existance will shake.

Even if you end up in hell???

[Flyndaran]

There is no such thing as supernatural. If magic, goblins, ghosts, and luck were to exist, then they would be part of real/natural existance.
Science isn't some limited world view perpetuated by white men in white lab coats. It is a reational method by which we examine and learn about reality. If it exists, then scientific analysis will prove it.

Hypothesising a creature, god, that can do things that only it can do, violating everything ever learned about the universe, AND chooses to do these things only to erase evidence of its existance, seems somewhat silly, let alone absurdly implausible.
It's on par with the creationists that label dinosaur bones hoaxes placed there by Satan.
Yes, it's technically possible that we are all autonomous robots with memories edited to make us believe that we are flesh and blood. But to just accept such unprovable things on faith alone is irrational.

And for any of those romantics that may label emotions, beauty, etc. irrational, I must disagree. Emotions exist. They have real effects on behaviors and health. To ignore and repress them Vulcan style is the height of irrationality. Understanding, accepting, and logcially steering feelings with human judgement is logical.
Logic and the sceintifc methos is not cold, and unable to fully understand certain aspects of reality.
It is the only sensible method of thought that can fully understand ANY aspect of reality.

If when I die, as a born atheist, I experience some form of continued existance, I would adapt. I may not accept infinities expressed by any fellow "dead" or non-human entities. But I will accept that my previous interpretation of reality was at least partly wrong... for the right reasons of course, but wrong none-the-less. And I will burst forth with such joyous relief that the very foundations of existance will shake.

[Slytovhand]

Hmmmm - well said, machinest!

Although - Ignoble Awards - sort of puts paid to the bit about

Also many of the fields of study don't intrude enough on every day life as to make them appear to be worth putting in the effort to study.

[machinest]

I think that there are no things that are inherently unknowable given enough time and effort to study them but that there are many reports of occurrences where the necessary information to accurately asses them is simply not present . Also many of the fields of study don't intrude enough on every day life as to make them appear to be worth putting in the effort to study.

[Slytovhand]

Hey AFP - nice first post up there... I like!

You've made a great point, which I was trying to get to with this whole thread -

our inability to detect them does not have a bearing on their existence or lack thereof.

that's actually the same thing about anything 'supernatural'. Why should there be a difference? Obviously, I'm one who thinks that such things as "ghosts, goblins, and magic" are a part of the 'natural' universe. But for those things whose existence is in a different part of the universe? What if the laws of nature that we understand operate differently in their universe?

"there is nothing above the laws of nature"... Ok, question Flyn... if I happen to cast a spell in the middle of a desert under a clear blue cloudless sky, with the intention of having a bucket-load of rain fall within minutes (or seconds)... and within 2 minutes of completing that spell, a massive thunderstorm comes overhead and soaks us all in seconds, and persists for the next 2 days. Where does that fit in your universe? Obviously, this would fall into the 'laws of nature that supercede all those we have learned and studied' - but because it doesn't fall into that, does that mean a) we haven't studied enough, or b) there is stuff out there that falls outside the laws as we know them? (yes, it's hypothetical. But there are things that have happened which may be comparable...and will keep happening)

I suppose the ultimate question here is - can science explain everything? You seem to think that it can. (Spice Girls??? )

Flyn - where do you get the idea that anything supernatural (in the real meaning of the word) violates any laws? (yep - now we're heading into philosphy...).

[AFPheonix]

Reality is not up for personal opinion. It is what it is. Individuals may be completely or partially wrong.

Sure, if we're talking a reality based on natural law. We're not, though. Your reality and mine do not have the presence of the supernatural in it, but others might. That does not harm to you and I, so I'm not going to worry about whether someone wishes to believe in God or not.

Again that is a very poor comparison. Whether or not there is a being that violates everything we know and observe about the universe is not anything like whether an undiscovered rodent exists in the jungles of mumble mumble that DOESN'T violate any known laws.

I was referring to his statement about another humanoid race somewhere in a galaxy far, far away. I was not referring to God or any other supernatural being or power.

Again not very understandable. The supernatural is defined by not being predictable or obseverable when someone wants to examine it, like some omnipotent petulant child. Even if something like ghosts, goblins, and magic were to exist, they would not truly be supernatural as they would be measurable and observable.
There is nothing above the laws of nature. You mean to say that there are laws of nature that supercede all those we have learned and studied, despite there being no experiment that detected such unknown laws.

I'm not saying that at all. Not all things have to be natural is all I'm saying. But again, I don't believe in the supernatural. I am what you would refer to as an agnostic athiest. I'm just intellectually honest enough to say that we don't know for sure, probably won't ever know, so I will not make a hard and fast statement that there is no supernatural. I will only admit that people at least think that they can discern it.

[Flyndaran]

I suppose for some people it could be self-delusion. For others it's personal preference. I think of it like people who like Coke or Pepsi. .... .

Reality is not up for personal opinion. It is what it is. Individuals may be completely or partially wrong.

As for other beings that we have no knowledge or record of, even if they are measurable: our inability to detect them does not have a bearing on their existence or lack thereof. How many species on our own planet still exist without us knowing? ....

Again that is a very poor comparison. Whether or not there is a being that violates everything we know and observe about the universe is not anything like whether an undiscovered rodent exists in the jungles of mumble mumble that DOESN'T violate any known laws.

Science cannot measure the supernatural because science depends entirely on observation and experimentation. How does one observe and experiment on god, and get reliable results that other labs can replicate? The thing is, it cannot be done. God and other supernatural things are above the laws of nature. (hence super-natural).
....

Again not very understandable. The supernatural is defined by not being predictable or obseverable when someone wants to examine it, like some omnipotent petulant child. Even if something like ghosts, goblins, and magic were to exist, they would not truly be supernatural as they would be measurable and observable.
There is nothing above the laws of nature. You mean to say that there are laws of nature that supercede all those we have learned and studied, despite there being no experiment that detected such unknown laws.

[AFPheonix]

I suppose for some people it could be self-delusion. For others it's personal preference. I think of it like people who like Coke or Pepsi. Is someone who likes Coke and thinks Pepsi is absolute swill more right than one who thinks Pepsi is the best thing since sliced bread? No, they just detect different things in both beverages that they like. It is the same for people in spiritual matters. Some people are just more sensitive to whatever their religious preference is. I tried to be a good Christian when I was a kid, but I never could shake the feeling that I was really praying to thin air, and not to a deity at all. Maybe someday I'll come across some spiritual truth that grabs me, but for now, I am content with where I am.

As for other beings that we have no knowledge or record of, even if they are measurable: our inability to detect them does not have a bearing on their existence or lack thereof. How many species on our own planet still exist without us knowing? They don't care, they go about their business and their lives undisturbed. The thing with science is that all scientists know that there are a host of things yet unknown and undiscovered, and the hope is that with enough time and experimentation, we will add to the body of knowledge that we have.

Science cannot measure the supernatural because science depends entirely on observation and experimentation. How does one observe and experiment on god, and get reliable results that other labs can replicate? The thing is, it cannot be done. God and other supernatural things are above the laws of nature. (hence super-natural).
This is not to say that spiritual study and scientific study do not overlap at times. The origin of life is one of those times, and to get a full view of it one needs both the nuts and bolts of science (how things work) and the inspiration of spiritualism (why things work). It is vitally important, however not to confuse the two or make the one try to explain the realm of the other.

[Slytovhand]

Oh, Ok...

It read as I suggested, that because it can't prove it, then it can't exist.

Speaking of which... hypothesis - there was a planet in another part of the universe, say near the Horsehead nebula. There was a race comparable to homo sapiens sapiens. They had a technology similar to, say, Victorian England. Unfortunately for them, their star went supernova about 150 million years ago. Did they exist? I mean, obviously their existence falls into the 'natural' category, but there is basically no way on Earth we'll ever be able to prove they existed.... Does that mean, according to the arguments provided here, that as far as we are concerned, they didn't?

I still won't suggest that ID is a form of scienc (see that little thread...), but....

Question regarding 'supernatural'. Why would you think that science can't touch 'supernatural'?? Is it because of definitions? That science can only deal with 'natural' phenomenon? I ask, because I am other belief that such things do fall into the realm of 'science' - though not with the technology we have today.

Have you ever read anything by either Anne McCaffrey in her "Tower & Hive" series, or Julian May's "Golden Torc" and "Galactic Milieu" trilogy. Ok, it's classed as fantasy, but still sort of reflects what I'm getting at. Same also with the Technomages on B5.

Still not referring to 'god', but am introducing concepts that currentl fall outside of science.

Also curious... if you don't believe in such things, but will allow that people 'think they may feel' - what do you think is going on?? Self-delusion?

I'm thinking of doing a long post on the ID thread... but should wait til after the other one I posted has sunk in a bit...

[AFPheonix]

What AFP has just said is that because we humans are unable to prove the existence of God in any way, and because such a question apparently falls outside of the realms of science - and by that logic alone, God does not and cannot exist ( - hence 'atheism'. Bugger, hey??

Actually, I only proved why ID cannot be science, regardless of what being a person thinks the creator is. Science cannot explore the supernatural, and the supernatural cannot be used to explain the natural world. Science can make no claim about God or spiritual matters, it's not its job. If someone wishes to believe in higher powers, that's their business.

As for myself, I am agnostic. I do not personally feel the supernatural, and therefore I do not believe in it. I also don't really relate to any organized religion any longer, because I feel it is the height of narcissism to say that only the followers of any one religion were able to correctly discern god.
But I do not doubt that people at least think they feel the realm of the supernatural. I do not begrudge anyone their beliefs, as long as they cause no harm to anyone else.

[Slytovhand]

Well said. That's why it ain't science, kids!

It presumes that our understanding of the universe is all correct.

We don't have any ideas on what the nature of deity actually is. We're still left with the opening question of how the universe actually came into being in the first place.

Oh yay - science hasn't got an answer for this one - thus god can't exist....

What AFP has just said is that because we humans are unable to prove the existence of God in any way, and because such a question apparently falls outside of the realms of science - and by that logic alone, God does not and cannot exist (

If that were so, then by his very nature we could never perform experiments to prove his existence.

- hence 'atheism'. Bugger, hey??

So I pose the question - does the existence of some sort of creator have to be proven by us humans before he/she/it/they can become a possibility? Because that is the nuts and bolts of the argument that I'm reading here. (note: The term being used is 'atheist', not 'agnostic').

[Jadedcarguy]

My take? Um, ok.

First off, I'm about as bleeding-heart liberal as you can get. I'm pro-choice, a feminist, and, yes, pro-gay marriage. VERY pro-gay marriage. (These beliefs do not contradict with Christianity as I see it. Which is why I no longer identify with a church or denomination.) And I'm a bit insulted by the fact that you assumed I wouldn't be. As I said before, we (as in myself and others) fought against the gay marriage ban. When we got 20 something percent of the vote, we were all thrilled.

I misread what you wrote the first time. I was under the impression you supported the ban. No insult intended there.