Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[Uber Genius]

Here we are treated to a clip from a 1998 debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins.

Atkins suggests that he has an evolutionary explanation for why humans beleive in God(s). He also says that science can explain everything so we don't have to look outside of science.

What follows is a basic education in logic and epistemology.

I maintain that there are reasonable arguments in support of atheism, but Scientism is not one of them.

 

[HitchSlap]

One not need anything other than "I don't believe in god/s" to support their atheism. This is what most theists here on CF (including the OP) fail to recognize. Atheism doesn't require support for unbelief, other than unbelief. Now, if you're asking if a natural explanation for belief in deities is sufficient for an atheist, then I suppose it might be. As Daniel Dennett says, humans have a need to believe in belief, as it seems to span all (most) cultures throughout history.

ETA: Just watched the video, and it's Willy Craig's usual you 'can't explain this, therefore my Abrahamic god exists' schtick.

 

[HitchSlap]

Fantastic video of Dennett explaining "belief."

 

[Uber Genius]

Atkins continues to this day to argue based on scientism. For a professor, he isn't much of a student.

If one adopts scientism as the only way of knowing, then you can't prove even scientific theories are true since they are based on:

1. Mathematical truths not provable by science
2. Logic truths not provable by science
3. Philosophy of science truths not provable by science
4. The majority of which are tested empirically in an external world I can't prove exists using science.
5. Experiments are performed by scientists that also can't be proven to exist using science.
6. Further Science progresses over time which requires the past to be a real feature of this world which in turn is not provable using science.
7. Scientist test intuition and inference, not provable by science.

The majority of the world we engage every day is done so without scientific knowledge. Now that doesn't mean science isn't a valuable method for understanding a portion of the physical world.

When a person makes a claim at knowledge or to oppose such a claim watch to see if they are a arguing based on scientistic assumptions, incoherent ones.

Example:
2+2=4 is not a scientific statement, it is a mathematical one.

It is proven with math and logic.

If one were to boldly claim "No one is able to prove to me 2+2 =4 using empirical methods (AKA Science)!" They are betraying their scientism because we are applying an epistemological method (method for gaining knowledge in a specific field), that isn't able to tell us about immaterial, non-physical, abstract objects.

Equally I couldn't prove that the law in the U.S. is that all vehicles must drive on the right side of the road using science. This is proven using Law.

These are just tricks. And not very subtle either. One post should be enough to dissuade the average reader. At the undergrad level it takes one conversation, at the grad school level I hardly run into this trick, but at CF it is popular and many atheists defend it tooth and nail.

Finally, while we can easily reject the fallacious claims made by Peter Atkins in this video, this leaves us without positive claims for why one should believe God exists. For that video search for the full-length debate.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Atkins continues to this day to argue based on scientism. For a professor, he isn't much of a student.

If one adopts scientism as the only way of knowing, then you can't prove even scientific theories are true since they are based on:

1. Mathematical truths not provable by science
2. Logic truths not provable by science
3. Philosophy of science truths not provable by science
4. The majority of which are tested empirically in an external world I can't prove exists using science.
5. Experiments are performed by scientists that also can't be proven to exist using science.
6. Further Science progresses over time which requires the past to be a real feature of this world which in turn is not provable using science.
7. Scientist test intuition and inference, not provable by science.

Well, why don't you tell us what a mathematical truth is? Mathematics is nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. Can you tell me what you can prove as true with nothing but assumptions and definitions? Or can you show me something in mathematics that is neither an assumption, a definition, or a conclusion dependent upon said assumptions and definitions?

But science makes predictions about the physical world and those predictions come true. There is no other discipline for which this is true.

The majority of the world we engage every day is done so without scientific knowledge. Now that doesn't mean science isn't a valuable method for understanding a portion of the physical world.

And the majority of the world eats food that came from a farm while knowing nothing about farming.

When a person makes a claim at knowledge or to oppose such a claim watch to see if they are a arguing based on scientistic assumptions, incoherent ones.

Maybe I'm missing something because I didn't watch the video. I'm sorry but Craig is to us atheists as Dawkins is to you Christians. Just hard to listen to.

Example:
2+2=4 is not a scientific statement, it is a mathematical one.

It is proven with math and logic.

2+2={Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø},{Ø,{Ø}}}}, which is a string of symbols that have no meaning. Period, end of story. Yeah, it can be "proven" that 2+2=4... because we arranged our meaningless symbols in such a way so that it's "true."

If one were to boldly claim "No one is able to prove to me 2+2 =4 using empirical methods (AKA Science)!" They are betraying their scientism because we are applying an epistemological method (method for gaining knowledge in a specific field), that isn't able to tell us about immaterial, non-physical, abstract objects.

Equally I couldn't prove that the law in the U.S. is that all vehicles must drive on the right side of the road using science. This is proven using Law.

These are just tricks. And not very subtle either. One post should be enough to dissuade the average reader. At the undergrad level it takes one conversation, at the grad school level I hardly run into this trick, but at CF it is popular and many atheists defend it tooth and nail.

So it looks like you're saying that just like science is an inappropriate methodology for solving problems in mathematics or civil law, science is an inappropriate methodology for commenting on the existence of a deity. Do I have your point down?

The scientific and historical methods are both great ways of determining reality. Theology simply is not. If God has interacted with reality at some point in time, he should be detected by either the scientific or historical method.

Finally, while we can easily reject the fallacious claims made by Peter Atkins in this video, this leaves us without positive claims for why one should believe God exists. For that video search for the full-length debate.

So... you're saying that a positive case can actually be made for God and that blind belief is not necessary? Yet you can't really be bothered to spell it out for us explicitly... you want us to go hunting on our own for it?

 

[joinfree]

I maintain that there are reasonable arguments in support of atheism, but

Tell me at least one.

 

[Silmarien]

One not need anything other than "I don't believe in god/s" to support their atheism. This is what most theists here on CF (including the OP) fail to recognize. Atheism doesn't require support for unbelief, other than unbelief. Now, if you're asking if a natural explanation for belief in deities is sufficient for an atheist, then I suppose it might be. As Daniel Dennett says, humans have a need to believe in belief, as it seems to span all (most) cultures throughout history.

ETA: Just watched the video, and it's Willy Craig's usual you 'can't explain this, therefore my Abrahamic god exists' schtick.

How precisely is this relevant? Nobody is ever under any obligation to support any belief or lack thereof--you can believe in unicorns if you so desire, or you could refuse to believe that the moon landing occurred. Nobody is kicking down your door demanding that you offer rational justifications for anything at all. If you prefer to dogmatically refuse to examine your own beliefs, that is your choice. I would consider it a poor choice, but that is beside the point.

The OP was specifically about scientism and the type of atheist who quite literally refers to science as omnipotent. There was no insistence anywhere that anyone defend any belief, just a criticism of a specific trend in atheistic thought. If you cannot handle criticism of any sector of the atheistic world, then you're welcome to ignore it, but proudly proclaiming that atheists need not understand their own position and its strengths and weaknesses does little for the credibility of atheism as a rational stance.

 

[HitchSlap]

How precisely is this relevant? Nobody is ever under any obligation to support any belief or lack thereof--you can believe in unicorns if you so desire, or you could refuse to believe that the moon landing occurred. Nobody is kicking down your door demanding that you offer rational justifications for anything at all. If you prefer to dogmatically refuse to examine your own beliefs, that is your choice. I would consider it a poor choice, but that is beside the point.

The OP was specifically about scientism and the type of atheist who quite literally refers to science as omnipotent. There was no insistence anywhere that anyone defend any belief, just a criticism of a specific trend in atheistic thought. If you cannot handle criticism of any sector of the atheistic world, then you're welcome to ignore it, but proudly proclaiming that atheists need not understand their own position and its strengths and weaknesses does little for the credibility of atheism as a rational stance.

lol... ok Don Quixote.

 

[Silmarien]

lol... ok Don Quixote.

Hey, you're the one tilting at windmills here. Nobody else actually cares whether or not you want to justify your atheism--that's on you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Atheism doesn't need justification. It is merely the statement that one is unconvinced.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hey, you're the one tilting at windmills here. Nobody else actually cares whether or not you want to justify your atheism--that's on you.

I don't believe in god/s. What justification does one need beyond this?

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think anyone here views science as literally omnipotent, but I will say that it's the only useful tool we have for creating reliable, predictive models of reality. There are other facets of reality that don't fall under the realm of scientific inquiry, so I think a wiser version of Atkins's argument (which he may have given after the video clip cut off) would be that there is no need to jump to supernatural conclusions about something just because a natural explanation is not currently available.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't believe in god/s. What justification does one need beyond this?

Nobody needs to justify any belief or lack thereof to anyone else. I don't know why you're obsessing over a need for justification here. It seems completely off topic, given that the topic of the thread is scientism.

The most intellectually sophisticated atheists certainly do work at justifying their position, but if you do not want to, you do not need to. It doesn't come across as worth listening to, but that's your prerogative.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nobody needs to justify any belief or lack thereof to anyone else. I don't know why you're obsessing over a need for justification here. It seems completely off topic, given that the topic of the thread is scientism.

The most intellectually sophisticated atheists certainly do work at justifying their position, but if you do not want to, you do not need to. It doesn't come across as worth listening to, but that's your prerogative.

Do you believe that if science can’t account for everything, therefore god?

 

[Silmarien]

Do you believe that if science can’t account for everything, therefore god?

Not sure how that's relevant either, but no. I think some of the classical arguments actually work. I'm a critic of much of Craig's apologetics, but that doesn't make him wrong in this clip.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheism doesn't need justification. It is merely the statement that one is unconvinced.

Sure, atheism itself doesn't need justification in a direct and general sense, but the epistemology that any one atheist happens to use (whether he does so knowingly or unknowingly) and by which he/she makes supposedly "logical" or "rational" conclusions, does directly involve the cognitive process of ... justification.

So, to some extent the overall worldview or Outlook-On-Life that any one atheist has does involve justification of some sort and at some level within the total view of the world that he/she holds, and nowadays that more often than not reduces down to the fact that the atheistic person asserts Evidentialist or Verificationist or Positivist predilections about how he/she thinks the world "should" appear ... IF there were a God. Of course, if an atheist happens to be an existentialist, like Sartre or Nietzsche, then the atheistic perceptions can be held so much the easier and with lesser amounts of justification.............. (kind of like some Christians do who draw from Kierkegaard or Pascal ).

So, all of this Mumbo-Jumbo that atheists often try to pass off on the rest of us that 'their little view' doesn't involve justification--that it's nothing more than a 'just so' condition--probably needs to stop, unless they're actually full-blown Existentialists.

I mean, justification is conceptually inherent within the state of mind of being "unconvinced."

 

[HitchSlap]

Not sure how that's relevant either, but no. I think some of the classical arguments actually work. I'm a critic of much of Craig's apologetics, but that doesn't make him wrong in this clip.

Nor does it make him right, either. Arguments from incredulity is not evidence of god/s.

You know as well as I do this video clip is a simple attempt to goad from the OP. Now if you have a legitimate question, you should ask, rather than piggyback on an obvious straw man. I’m not surprised in the least by the OP’s antics, but I somehow expected more from you. Meh.

 

[Silmarien]

Nor does it make him right, either. Arguments from incredulity is not evidence of god/s.

You know as well as I do this video clip is a simple attempt to goad from the OP. Now if you have a legitimate question, you should ask, rather than piggyback on an obvious straw man. I’m not surprised in the least by the OP’s antics, but I somehow expected more from you. Meh.

Eh, I clash with Uber enough over ID to not think he's intentionally goading with any of these threads. And even if he were, there are better ways to respond to that than by doubling down on the rejection of rational thought. I am not a fan of Craig, but I am pretty mystified by how some atheists seem to check their brains at the door whenever he comes up.

And I do not care for the "atheism does not need justification" spiel as a rhetorical ploy. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but if you are going to enter the public sphere and talk to people who disagree with you, I expect you to have more to bring to the conversation than this sort of narcissistic obsession with your own lack of belief. I try to give you guys some slack, because I know you've come out of sectors of the Christian world that are positively toxic, but at some point you do have to learn how to move past that and have a healthier relationship with the religious world.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure, atheism itself doesn't need justification in a direct and general sense,

Right. You can't choose your beliefs.

but the epistemology that any one atheist happens to use (whether he does so knowingly or unknowingly) and by which he/she makes supposedly "logical" or "rational" conclusions, does directly involve the cognitive process of ... justification.

Yep, what other choice do we have.

So, to some extent the overall worldview or Outlook-On-Life that any one atheist has does involve justification of some sort and at some level within the total view of the world that he/she holds, and nowadays that more often than not reduces down to the fact that the atheistic person asserts Evidentialist or Verificationist or Positivist predilections about how he/she thinks the world "should" appear ... IF there were a God.

Lol... no need to flatter your yourself.

Of course, if an atheist happens to be an existentialist, like Sartre or Nietzsche, then the atheistic perceptions can be held so much the easier and with lesser amounts of justification.............. (kind of like some Christians do who draw from Kierkegaard or Pascal ).

Much in the same way one justifies not collecting stamps?

So, all of this Mumbo-Jumbo that atheists often try to pass off on the rest of us

If by "Mumbo-Jumbo" you mean the fact you've failed to demonstrate deities exist, then yes.

(You may have just added a new definition to CF... "Mumbo-Jumbo" - that which theists cannot demonstrate to exist, but yet are stupefied we don't believe them.)

that 'their little view' doesn't involve justification

I can absolutely justify not believing in your god.

--that it's nothing more than a 'just so' condition--probably needs to stop, unless they're actually full-blown Existentialists.

Sure, I'll leave the anthropic principle for you.

I mean, justification is conceptually inherent within the state of mind of being "unconvinced."

Nonsense.

 

[HitchSlap]

Eh, I clash with Uber enough over ID to not think he's intentionally goading with any of these threads. And even if he were, there are better ways to respond to that than by doubling down on the rejection of rational thought. I am not a fan of Craig, but I am pretty mystified by how some atheists seem to check their brains at the door whenever he comes up.

And I do not care for the "atheism does not need justification" spiel as a rhetorical ploy. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but if you are going to enter the public sphere and talk to people who disagree with you, I expect you to have more to bring to the conversation than this sort of narcissistic obsession with your own lack of belief. I try to give you guys some slack, because I know you've come out of sectors of the Christian world that are positively toxic, but at some point you do have to learn how to move past that and have a healthier relationship with the religious world.

Lol... Your projection is showing, you might want to tighten that back up a bit.

Until such time you're prepared to support with evidence that deities exist, then I'm sure there's no end to your insults. Take care.

"Doubling down on rejection of rational thought"... sheesh.