Argument against atheism

[Paleo-Conservative]

Quite the contrary. Science answers the question of "how" which is a question of "by what means or method" whereas religion seeks to answer the question of "why" which is a question of "intent, purpose and reason".

Science by it's very nature is not interested in or capable of discerning intent or purpose in the natural world. In fact for this reason, this has led many scientific people to conclude that there is no purpose in life and the universe "It just is".

Therefore, science and religion when remaining within their natural areas, cannot actually conflict. In fact they together seek to answer the two questions that mankind has always asked instinctively.

Christianity states that reality is based on things we can't see, can't hear, can't touch, can't taste, or basically can't verify using the Scientific Method. But, the religion of science states that reality is based on things you can prove using the scientific method. How can one claim to be a Christian, but then claim to support science? It appears to me that this person would be rather irrational, delusional, and/or self-deceiving.

 

[Arikay]

You need to seperate science and the religion of science. Christianity is compatible with science, it sees science as the study of gods creation. It is not compatible with your religion of science. But you must seperate the two things.

Christianity states that reality is based on things we can't see, can't hear, can't touch, can't taste, or basically can't verify using the Scientific Method. But, the religion of science states that reality is based on things you can prove using the scientific method. How can one claim to be a Christian, but then claim to support science? It appears to me that this person would be rather irrational, delusional, and/or self-deceiving.

 

[Philosoft]

I reject your premise that special creation is a purely empirical theory.

Well, you can't deduce special creation. That leaves you with induction - otherwise known as an evidential argument.

On that topic, I also reject Darwinist (and neo-Darwinist) evolution as being a purely empirical theory. They both employ empirical truths in part, but I was referring to "philosophical proofs" - the deductive elements that special creation relies on.

What "deductive elements"? The Bible? You are confusing deduction and circularity. Besides, an argument is either deductive or not. If you have a sound deductive argument for special creation, then you have a proof. But you don't.

 

[Paleo-Conservative]

You need to seperate science and the religion of science. Christianity is compatible with science, it sees science as the study of gods creation. It is not compatible with your religion of science. But you must seperate the two things.

But science IS a religion, a religion that actually works, something no other religion does.

How can you support science, which requires the use of evidence, but then believe in deities, souls, a devil, Hell, Heavan, and similar supernatural aspects, which can't be proven using science? How can you be rational in one way, but then irrational in another way? You have embraced two antagonistic religions, and the Christian deity would be displeased that you embraced the devil's creation of science to lead you astray.

 

[Arikay]

again, you need to seperate the two, science and theology, most scientists do. Science is not the devils creation, its the study of gods creation.

You are making the same fallacy that many creationist groups do, Science does not equal atheism and creationism does not equal christianity. (I know you haven't said anything about creationism, but it sounds like that is your view of christians).

BTW, im an atheist.

 

[Paleo-Conservative]

again, you need to seperate the two, science and theology, most scientists do. Science is not the devils creation, its the study of gods creation.

You are making the same fallacy that many creationist groups do, Science does not equal atheism and creationism does not equal christianity. (I know you haven't said anything about creationism, but it sounds like that is your view of christians).

BTW, im an atheist.

Perhaps we are defining religion differently. I am defining religion as a deep belief in a certain way of life, a code to live by, something that gives one a purpose and direction in life. For me, this is science. For others, it's Christianity.

 

[Davebuck]

Perhaps we are defining religion differently. I am defining religion as a deep belief in a certain way of life, a code to live by, something that gives one a purpose and direction in life. For me, this is science. For others, it's Christianity.

I'd say that isn't a useful definition of religion. If you use that definition, conservatism, libertarianism, republicanism, prison code, athletism, etc.. or just about anything can be religion.

No, a code to live by can be considered one's 'morality' or ethical framework. Ones specific beliefs in deities should be considered one's religion. These are two different things and useful to keep conceptually distinct.

Atheism, in this case is neither a morality, nor a religion. It is simply not having a belief in a deity. It's like not believing in Bigfoot. That's not a religion or moral code. It's just that you doubt bigfoot exists.

 

[Davebuck]

Oh, I forgot to add that since the appropriate definition of religion is ones specific beliefs in a deity, science doesn't fall into the category. Science is a methodology or process.

Now, Scientism (the strong version) is not a process but a belief system. It posits that all questions will eventually be answered by science. Most scientists don't even subscribe to this belief. Rather, pragmatically, most conclude that science is the best process we got going for understanding the world with confidence and we'll keep trying to improve our undertanding as well as the methods of science.

So, science is a process, not a religion.