Can science justify atheism in people that don't understand science?

[Futuwwa]

And how do you figure that? Science has yet to find any evidence of a Creator...if you have some, I'd love to see it.

Well, duh! Science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. To claim that a metaphysical creator does not exist since natural science has found no evidence of it is like claiming that the macroeconomic Law of Twin Deficits is false because chemistry has found no evidence for it.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Science surely can prove the existence of a creator, As such I think that atheists must have more faith then we believers, because the scientific odds are pretty good in favour of a creator.

Current information does not "favor" a creator. In general, the more we are learning about universe it's pointing away from any notion of an "intelligent designer" and towards concepts of how our current universe that don't correlate to ANY theology in the least.

But leaving aside such reasoning, I'm 100% convinced that people are atheists due to sin, hence it's easier for them to turn away from GOD than to repent and ask for forgiveness.

Ah the they just want to be naught fallacy. I mean, people just can't possibly be atheists because they don't believe in gods and see no reasonable evidence that theological assertions should be taken seriously. That's just silly talk. Christians are atheists to all Gods but one, so I find the irony a little funny.

However Sin is a vicious circle, the more deeper one falls into sin the bigger the chains, we can see this all around us, depression, husbands not loving their wifes, marriages breaking up, etc...

John Paul II once wrote in the theology of the body about the diferences between men and women, and he pointed out how men and women are wired diferently, men have been designed to love their wifes and wifes can only love a men if they are first loved, have you considered that the problems with the world today is because sin is stopping men from loving their families (to love is to give), and in turn women who do not feel loved go out into the world searching to be loved, one can look at all the plastic surgery, botox, short skirts, etc, etc... when they feel good about themselves then they received the attention from men, that they probably would not receive otherwise, i'm not sure if you following my line of thinking but if you are then i'm sure you understand.

Changing the subject and appealing to emotional platitude doesn't change anything.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Well, duh! Science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. To claim that a metaphysical creator does not exist since natural science has found no evidence of it is like claiming that the macroeconomic Law of Twin Deficits is false because chemistry has found no evidence for it.

Question begging and the weight of evidence is on the one making the positive claim. Show a metaphysical ANYTHING exists first.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

What if one doesn't accept "metaphysical?"

 

[peepnklown]

Science is the endeavor to determine, and increase human knowledge of how the physical world works: unless god/s is a part of the physical world then how does science say anything about god/s? Theology deals with god/s.

 

[Im_A]

Science is the endeavor to determine, and increase human knowledge of how the physical world works: unless god/s is a part of the physical world then how does science say anything about god/s? Theology deals with god/s.

i agree with you to an extent. if a god, or gods would exist i would think science would be the first place to start personally and not theology. theology to me is more theories that cannot be put under a microscope, but are theorized in the brain, mixed with emotions and personal convictions and needs. theology would be the last place to find god, or gods as far as i'm concerned because theology will always be hampered by personal conviction, emotions, selfish motives even.

science is the unbiased method to increase human knowledge of how our world works, but i also agree with Dawkins and the like, that based upon the writings of how gods work, be it the bible, koran or other ancient texts, i think science shows that if a God or gods would exist, our existence, our natural world would not be the way we've discovered it to be.

Well, duh! Science deals with the physical, not the metaphysical. To claim that a metaphysical creator does not exist since natural science has found no evidence of it is like claiming that the macroeconomic Law of Twin Deficits is false because chemistry has found no evidence for it.

the only way you can justify the metaphysical and divine is with theology. theology would have to work hand in hand with the metaphysical. theology is not the best source to find truth imho, because what you find, you have to believe in first for it to be even worth of justifying. you don't have to believe in what science finds. it is the facts that has been found, proven, tested. no matter of personal convictions, personal emotions, our discoveries, and advancements stand true.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

Show a metaphysical ANYTHING exists first.

If you believe this, then you had best never marry!

Please note that love, too, can't be objectively proven. And it's always possible your partner is only acting--playing a role to trick you for nefarious reasons possibly not related to you!

Just the facts.

Bruce

 

[arunma]

Current information does not "favor" a creator. In general, the more we are learning about universe it's pointing away from any notion of an "intelligent designer" and towards concepts of how our current universe that don't correlate to ANY theology in the least.

May I ask you to elaborate on this astrophysical evidence which runs contrary to the doctrine of an active Creator?

(For this discussion, I would prefer not to debate the widely held belief regarding a ~6,000 year old universe, since I presume that neither of us subscribes to it anyway.)

 

[arunma]

I don't have the time to become a scientist (or the brains or money for that matter ), but the faith I require to believe in science is only limited by my own choices.

Just a public service announcement: graduate school in the physical and life sciences is free. Actually it's better than free, since they pay you just barely enough to live on. As for brains, trust me when I say that there are enough idiot scientists out there to refute the notion that one needs to be smart to be a scientist (not that you're an idiot). Of course the issue of time is certainly a valid excuse, since getting that pesky PhD thing requires...well, basically you have to give up on having a life for five years.

It seems to me that if more of the science-worshiping types actually learned some real science, they'd see that they are putting a disproportionate level of trust in it.

 

[Futuwwa]

Question begging and the weight of evidence is on the one making the positive claim. Show a metaphysical ANYTHING exists first.

On whom the burden of proof lies is a matter of academic convention. There exists no objectively true standard for that. However, your question is beyond the topic of this thread, which is whether there is any link between atheism and (presumably natural) science.

 

[Futuwwa]

It seems to me that if more of the science-worshiping types actually learned some real science, they'd see that they are putting a disproportionate level of trust in it.

Yup.

To attempt to answer metaphysical questions using the scientific method is like trying to detect radiation with a ruler. To claim that metaphysics doesn't exist because it cannot be investigated with the scientific method is like claiming that radiation doesn't exist since it doesn't show up on your ruler.

 

[Rasta]

Yup.

To attempt to answer metaphysical questions using the scientific method is like trying to detect radiation with a ruler. To claim that metaphysics doesn't exist because it cannot be investigated with the scientific method is like claiming that radiation doesn't exist since it doesn't show up on your ruler.

To claim that that metaphysical entities exsists without evidence of it's exsistence is like claiming pink bunnies exsist in the andromeda galaxy.

You can't disprove it can you, it must be true in that case.

Either we have a reliable way to get information or we don't. It's really not that difficult of a concept.

Of course to admit this would mean that people would not be able to use their personal opinions as the "WORD OF GOD" or "GOD's TRUTH".

A funny way to show this point is to ask theists where their personal opinions are in conflict with "GOD's" personal opinions. They never are!

 

[Futuwwa]

You can't disprove it can you, it must be true in that case.

I never claimed such a thing. I simply claimed that certain methodologies are unable to determine certain things. There may or may not be pink bunnies in the Andromeda galaxy.

 

[Rasta]

I never claimed such a thing.

You also claimed the exsistence of a metaphysical creator. If some form of creator does exist, what makes you think it's metaphysical?

I simply claimed that certain methodologies are unable to determine certain things. There may or may not be pink bunnies in the Andromeda galaxy.

I agree with the blanket claim that certain methodologies are unable to determine certain things. Yet, you had greater implications than just this blanket statement.

Do you sincerely believe that pink bunnies may exsist in the Andromeda galaxy?

 

[Rasta]

May I ask you to elaborate on this astrophysical evidence which runs contrary to the doctrine of an active Creator?

I assume you mean a specific Christian docterine?

Before philosophy was highly integrated into the interpretations of the current docterines, people had a much more simple understanding of how gods interacted with them.

The heavens were literally the clouds and stars (which were not differentiated) this was the physical place where gods or God dwelled. They ascribed anthropomorphic qualities to all natural phenomenon.

The newer religions seem to have integrated the fact that god or gods can't be seen, heard, touched, or tasted in any literal sence of thoes words. Or at least "not anymore".

 

[Futuwwa]

You also claimed the exsistence of a metaphysical creator. If some form of creator does exist, what makes you think it's metaphysical?

No, I did not. Well, I do, but I did not so in the context of this thread.

I agree with the blanket claim that certain methodologies are unable to determine certain things. Yet, you had greater implications than just this blanket statement.

Do you sincerely believe that pink bunnies may exsist in the Andromeda galaxy?

Yes. As long as "may" is the keyword. I have absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other.

 

[Rasta]

No, I did not. Well, I do, but I did not so in the context of this thread.

What's the difference between believing a claim, and typing it?

Yes. As long as "may" is the keyword. I have absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other.

Which of course can be said of all supernatural claims. That doesn't mean it's a solid theory however, just because a claim can't be verified.

 

[Im_A]

Just a public service announcement: graduate school in the physical and life sciences is free. Actually it's better than free, since they pay you just barely enough to live on. As for brains, trust me when I say that there are enough idiot scientists out there to refute the notion that one needs to be smart to be a scientist (not that you're an idiot). Of course the issue of time is certainly a valid excuse, since getting that pesky PhD thing requires...well, basically you have to give up on having a life for five years.

It seems to me that if more of the science-worshiping types actually learned some real science, they'd see that they are putting a disproportionate level of trust in it.

just as every believer puts disproportionate level of trust in their divine theologians and authors of their bible, koran or whatever. i'd go with a scientist, before a 2nd century or middle century mystified arabic, jew or any other speaker for religion or any other mystified theologians.

 

[Futuwwa]

just as every believer puts disproportionate level of trust in their divine theologians and authors of their bible, koran or whatever. i'd go with a scientist, before a 2nd century or middle century mystified arabic, jew or any other speaker for religion or any other mystified theologians.

Why not let science answer the questions science was intended to answer, and let the philosophers (theologians or secular) answer the questions their field is intended to answer?

Even if your ruler is the most accurate in the world, it is still unable to measure radiation.

Contrary to you science-worshipers, Arumna and I are actual physicists. We know what natural science can do, and what it can't. We keep physics and metaphysics apart, and so should you.

 

[Futuwwa]

What's the difference between believing a claim, and typing it?

Can you quote the section where you think I've made a claim of a creator in this thread? I made a claim concerning a claim. I claimed that a particular claim is a metaphysical claim.

Which of course can be said of all supernatural claims. That doesn't mean it's a solid theory however, just because a claim can't be verified.

Of course not, that was never claimed either. The solidity of the theory would have to be determined by philosophical discourse, not the scientific method.