Be skeptical of atheism.

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 220
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Faith in science has already been offered, so it doesn't make sense for a lack of science to be a cause requiring faith.
When you said, 

Thinking that he can is not faith.  It appears I have assumed your meaning incorrectly.
I thought we agreed that science does not require faith.

Please explain.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll never ask you 'Do you think it will rain?'.!

Do you think there is a significant (say >1%) chance of the super-duper time-travelling alien scenario is correct?

It doesn't matter now - I've forgotten what it was all about.





Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Expanded Context
Calculating a probability and showing your work with a margin of error isn't the same as holding conviction, going forth and turning on a light switch.  We've established that much.  
So can we agree that "faith" might be the wrong word to use for "faith in science"?

Thinking that he can is not faith.  It appears I have assumed your meaning incorrectly.
Reply
Faith in science has already been offered, so it doesn't make sense for a lack of science to be a cause requiring faith.
When you said, 

Thinking that he can is not faith.  It appears I have assumed your meaning incorrectly.
I thought we agreed that science does not require faith.

Please explain.
Negative, notice we have not established anything further than the emboldened portion and we never agreed that science does not require faith.  I am referring back to my initial assumption of what you meant by "faith in science", which at least makes sense.  There is nothing else for me to refer to.  

               Initial Assumption
I assume when you say faith in science you are essentially referring to the idea that without having yet done so, you will be able to duplicate the scientific methodology, and you are going to take a leap of faith in order to test the theory.  Just because you are imagining a cathode collecting hydrogen bubbles and an anode collecting oxygen bubbles doesn't make the faith itself distinguishable from faith in anything else. 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
That is nonsense, the vast majority of scientists who discovered anything of lasting value were theists.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I'll never ask you 'Do you think it will rain?'.!
There is scientific data that allows us to reliably (but not perfectly) predict the weather.

Do you think there is a significant (say >1%) chance of the super-duper time-travelling alien scenario is correct?
I'm not sure how to pin a "percentage" to it, but if we're speaking purely hypothetically, I think there's a less than zero chance that there are some number of "more intelligent" "beings" "somewhere" that may have or may not have interacted with humans at some point in the "past" and that may or may not interact with humans at some point in the "future".

HowEVEr, there appear to be zero practical (real-world) implications either way (exist/not-exist/interact/not-interact).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
I thought we agreed that science does not require faith.

Please explain.
Negative, notice we have not established anything further than the emboldened portion and we never agreed that science does not require faith.  I am referring back to my initial assumption of what you meant by "faith in science", which at least makes sense.  There is nothing else for me to refer to.
Do you think it's fair to say "science requires faith"?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I  can think of two senses of 'having faith in science' and there may be more!

One sense is  that 'scientific facts can be trusted', such as 'water boils at 100 degrees' and 'water is h2o'.  

A different sense of 'faith in science' is believing that rational enquiry will continue to reveal truths and eliminate errors.   A biologist woking on abiogenesis or cancer research might fail to crack a prolem, but will still have have faith that the problem will be cracked one day.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
One sense is  that 'scientific facts can be trusted', such as 'water boils at 100 degrees' and 'water is h2o'.   
You don't need faith if you can verify and or you have demonstrably reliable sources and data.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree that is a weak and uninteresting sense of the term.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
A different sense of 'faith in science' is believing that rational enquiry will continue to reveal truths and eliminate errors.  
You don't need faith in rational inquiry.  The efficacy of rational inquiry is compelling evidence.  We all know that rational inquiry is not 100% fool proof, but it is THE MOST RELIABLE METHOD OF GATHERING DATA.  It certainly beats the pants off of "pure intuition" and "ancient writings".

A biologist woking on abiogenesis or cancer research might fail to crack a prolem, but will still have have faith that the problem will be cracked one day.
Abiogenesis (and or a cancer cure) may be either flat-wrong (unsolvable) or unverifiable (unattainable), but that is no reason to stop research.

Faith is not a prerequisite to persistence.  It is perfectly rational to approach a "problem" with the most reliable tools available, knowing full well that not all "problems" are actually solvable.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
We are sooooo anti-science.


"Wherefore I prayed, and understanding was given me: I called upon God, and the spirit of wisdom came to me.
I preferred her before sceptres and thrones, and esteemed riches nothing in comparison of her.
Neither compared I unto her any precious stone, because all gold in respect of her is as a little sand, and silver shall be counted as clay before her.
I loved her above health and beauty, and chose to have her instead of light: for the light that cometh from her never goeth out.
All good things together came to me with her, and innumerable riches in her hands.
And I rejoiced in them all, because wisdom goeth before them: and I knew not that she was the mother of them.
I learned diligently, and do communicate her liberally: I do not hide her riches.
For she is a treasure unto men that never faileth: which they that use become the friends of God, being commended for the gifts that come from learning.
God hath granted me to speak as I would, and to conceive as is meet for the things that are given me: because it is he that leadeth unto wisdom, and directeth the wise.
For in his hand are both we and our words; all wisdom also, and knowledge of workmanship.
For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:
The circuits of years, and the positions of stars:
The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots:
And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know.
For wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me: for in her is an understanding spirit holy, one only, manifold, subtil, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, not subject to hurt, loving the thing that is good quick, which cannot be letted, ready to do good,
Kind to man, steadfast, sure, free from care, having all power, overseeing all things, and going through all understanding, pure, and most subtil, spirits.
For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness.
For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her.
For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.
And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.
For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom.
For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it.
For after this cometh night: but vice shall not prevail against wisdom."

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:
The circuits of years, and the positions of stars:
The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots:
And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know.
Where is the science in that??   Knowledge was not sought by experiment and rational thought - it came as a gift from God:  "he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are".  That is revelation - the very antithesis of science!

And no proper scientist would ever be so arrogant as to claim "And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know."   

A proper scientist is more likely to say "I don't know", as Brian Cox does in this article

Perhaps you meant "We are sooooo anti-science." to be ironic - but it's not.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't need faith in rational inquiry.  The efficacy of rational inquiry is compelling evidence.  We all know that rational inquiry is not 100% fool proof, but it is THE MOST RELIABLE METHOD OF GATHERING DATA.  It certainly beats the pants off of "pure intuition" and "ancient writings".
You don't need faith to do rational inquiry, but it is faith in rational inquiry that makes us think it is worth doing.  if we didn't believe rational inquiry would lead us to the answer we wouldn't do it.  We'd scry chicken bones or consult sacred oracles instead.  But we do have faith in rational inquiry so we use it.   It has served us well!

Perhaps we do know rational inquiry might fail us one day, but no-one expects it to fail right now!  If an experiment fails to verify a hypothesis scientists don't question the validity of rational inquiry - we have too much faith in it to do that!  They'd check the experiment or change the hypothesis but they don't question the process of rational inquiry itself.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I can never tell whether you are purposely being obtuse or not.

But if you are not being intentional, I assert again our faith is not anti-science, and in fact, practice of our discipline would make a more effective scientist.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I'd also like to point out that you are reaping the benefit of what science has brought us, and are no scientist.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I got my BSc 40 years ago.  I was a technologist rather than a researcher, but I know one end of a test tube from the other.
  

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
As do I, and I am nothing but indignant when someone who denies Ultimate Reality makes pretense of having the scientific position.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
That is good enough reason to be skeptical of atheism. Behind all the sophistry, it is nihilism, pure and simple. The denial of Truth itself. 


And it stands to reason, and is even proven time and time again that the atheist has noo other argument other than to twist and pervert langusge to conform to their own superstitions. This is the type of arbitrariness that can even be predicted simply on knowing what an atheist is. A nihilist, a denier of truth itself. Their arguments are a matter of what is convenient, what they believe will sound the most convincing to the hearers. They have no real weight.


For no argument against God can stand, and at best an atheist can only disprove a little god of their own conception, but not The One True God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The very God that existence itself proves.


And they would rather deficate on their ancestors and the billions living today who believe in God in their pursuit of vanity and chaos than admit what is obvious. That God exists or it isn't God.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
...but it is faith in rational inquiry that makes us think it is worth doing.  if we didn't believe rational inquiry would lead us to the answer we wouldn't do it.
The scientific method is not fool-proof.  Science and rational inquiry make mistakes every single day.

HoWEver, we know, based on historical evidence, that the scientific method and rational inquiry are the most RELIABLE systems of data collection.

We don't need faith (100% confidence) that science "can solve every problem", because there are a great many unsolved and potentially unsolvable problems facing humanity.

If you flip a light switch, you expect (no faith required) the light to blink on, but if it doesn't, that does not shatter your faith in light switches (or science).
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
...but they don't question the process of rational inquiry itself.
They question methodology (which is never perfect) but you can't seriously question "rational inquiry itself" without throwing logic out the window.

Do you think it would be fair to say we have faith in logic?

OR do you think it would be more fair to say we have sufficient evidence of logic's efficacy (negating faith altogether)?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
That is good enough reason to be skeptical of atheism. Behind all the sophistry, it is nihilism, pure and simple. The denial of Truth itself.And it stands to reason, and is even proven time and time again that the atheist has noo other argument other than to twist and pervert langusge to conform to their own superstitions. This is the type of arbitrariness that can even be predicted simply on knowing what an atheist is. A nihilist, a denier of truth itself.Their arguments are a matter of what is convenient, what they believe will sound the most convincing to the hearers. They have no real weight.For no argument against God can stand, and at best an atheist can only disprove a little god of their own conception, but not The One True God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. The very God that existence itself proves.And they would rather deficate on their ancestors and the billions living today who believe in God in their pursuit of vanity and chaos than admit what is obvious. That God exists or it isn't God.
Straw-men, poisoning the well, ad hominems, and naked assertions.

Why not throw in some special pleading for good measure?
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Nonsense. As long as you make God anything other than The Ultimate Reality, you prove what I am saying is true.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
As long as you make God anything other than The Ultimate Reality, you prove what I am saying is true.
As a devout Deist, I believe god is the ultimate reality (and necessarily everything else too).
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
If you believe God exists, you should not be offended when I say atheism is not an intellectually defensible position.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
If you believe God exists, you should not be offended when I say atheism is not an intellectually defensible position.
Deism is functionally identical to Atheism.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
According to your understanding.


But believing that God exists is the opposite position that God does not exist.




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
According to your understanding.But believing that God exists is the opposite position that God does not exist.
The "problem" isn't, "does some sort of god or gods hypothetically exist or not exist?"

The "problem" is, "how do you know which god(s) and what difference does it make?"

An Atheist is simply "not a theist".

A Deist is also "not a theist".
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
A rock is not a theist.

Atheism makes only 1 theological supposition. 

Atheism is not compatible with seeking God. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
A rock is not a theist.
A literal Argumentum ad lapidem. [LINK]

Atheism makes only 1 theological supposition. 
That's true.  Namely, "there is no compelling reason to subscribe to any particular ancient rule-book".

Atheism is not compatible with seeking God.  
Atheism is perfectly compatible with seeking any number of non-theistic versions of god(s).
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not a fallacy (okay, its a sarcastic fallacy) because its analogous to what you are actually doing. You made the fallacy, comparing two different things and calling them the same. I pointed it out in English so that you can relate.