Where is the hope in atheism?

[2PhiloVoid]

This is actually a bit of a myth. The problem with Galileo was specifically that he was making very flamboyant claims to Absolute Truth without actually having good evidence behind him. His model of the solar system was wrong, since he insisted that the planets were orbiting in perfect circles and this meant the calculations didn't work. It wasn't until Kepler introduced the idea of elliptical orbits that heliocentrism actually worked as a theory.

Galileo had a bad theory, went around insisting that it was Truth, and then got involved in religious matters by pretty much demanding that the Church interpret Scripture in the way that he had been more or less divinely inspired to interpret it. He was stepping on toes with his theological proclamations, not his scientific ones.

I would rather say Galileo had an incomplete theory. If we're going to impute to Galileo what is 'to us' scientific error, then we'll have to likewise impute this to Copernicus, and to those Islamic scientists of the Middle Ages, as well as knock down Aristotle for other things. That is, if we want to get technical about it.

However, Galileo was right about a couple of things. One thing being, Aristotle was wrong about falling objects, and two, in an interpolation of Cardinal Baronius, Galileo said something to the effect that, "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Talk:Galileo Galilei - Wikiquote)

Furthermore,

Galileo's understanding of the relationship between science and the Bible has frequently been celebrated as anticipating a modern distinction between the essentially religious nature of scripture and the claims of the natural sciences. Galileo's reference to the remarks of Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible teaches one how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go, has been seem as emblematic of his commitment to the distinction between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. This essay argues that, contrary to the common view, Galileo shares with the theologians of the Inquisition the same fundamental principles of biblical interpretation: principles which include traditional scriptural hermeneutics enunciated by Augustine and Aquinas, as well as those characteristic of Counter-Reformation Catholicism. Although Galileo argues that one should not begin with biblical passages in order to discover truths about nature, he does think that the Bible contains scientific truths and that it is the function of wise interpreters to discover these truths. The dispute with the theologians of the Inquisition occurred because they thought that it was obviously true scientifically that the earth did not move and, on the basis of this view, they read the Bible as revealing the same thing. They reached this conclusion because, like Galileo, they thought that the Bible contained truths about nature. Of course, what these theologians accepted as scientifically true, Galileo denied. (Abstract quote)​

Reference
Carroll, W. E. (1999). Galileo and the Interpretation of the Bible. Science & Education, 8(2), 151-187.

 

[Silmarien]

I would rather say Galileo had an incomplete theory. If we're going to impute to Galileo what is 'to us' scientific error, then we'll have to likewise impute this to Copernicus, and to those Islamic scientists of the Middle Ages, as well as knock down Aristotle for other things. That is, if we want to get technical about it.

However, Galileo was right about a couple of things. One thing being, Aristotle was wrong about falling objects, and two, in an interpolation of Cardinal Baronius, Galileo said something to the effect that, "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." (Talk:Galileo Galilei - Wikiquote)

Furthermore,

Galileo's understanding of the relationship between science and the Bible has frequently been celebrated as anticipating a modern distinction between the essentially religious nature of scripture and the claims of the natural sciences. Galileo's reference to the remarks of Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible teaches one how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go, has been seem as emblematic of his commitment to the distinction between the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture. This essay argues that, contrary to the common view, Galileo shares with the theologians of the Inquisition the same fundamental principles of biblical interpretation: principles which include traditional scriptural hermeneutics enunciated by Augustine and Aquinas, as well as those characteristic of Counter-Reformation Catholicism. Although Galileo argues that one should not begin with biblical passages in order to discover truths about nature, he does think that the Bible contains scientific truths and that it is the function of wise interpreters to discover these truths. The dispute with the theologians of the Inquisition occurred because they thought that it was obviously true scientifically that the earth did not move and, on the basis of this view, they read the Bible as revealing the same thing. They reached this conclusion because, like Galileo, they thought that the Bible contained truths about nature. Of course, what these theologians accepted as scientifically true, Galileo denied. (Abstract quote)​

Reference
Carroll, W. E. (1999). Galileo and the Interpretation of the Bible. Science & Education, 8(2), 151-187.

I'd be fine saying "incomplete" also, but from what I understand, it was that very incompleteness that meant it didn't fit the empirical data as well as the Ptolemaic model did. So I don't think you can really blame people for not being willing to immediately accept it if the math wasn't working.

As far as biblical interpretation goes, I don't think the problem was that Galileo was wrong about how to interpret Scripture, but that as a layperson he was usurping the authority of the Church by actually campaigning for a specific interpretation. Catholicism is really big on the authority of the Magisterium, and that's what he was unnecessarily challenging. Complete failure of diplomacy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd be fine saying "incomplete" also, but from what I understand, it was that very incompleteness that meant it didn't fit the empirical data as well as the Ptolemaic model did. So I don't think you can really blame people for not being willing to immediately accept it if the math wasn't working.

As far as biblical interpretation goes, I don't think the problem was that Galileo was wrong about how to interpret Scripture, but that as a layperson he was usurping the authority of the Church by actually campaigning for a specific interpretation. Catholicism is really big on the authority of the Magisterium, and that's what he was unnecessarily challenging. Complete failure of diplomacy.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the claims by the "Magisterium." Guess how I feel about those?

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, I'm fully aware of the claims by the "Magisterium." Guess how I feel about those?

Very Protestant?

I mean, that's a legitimate issue to have, but it immediately makes what was going on a theological rather than scientific dispute. The Church wasn't bothered by scientists sticking to science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Very Protestant?

Quasi-protestant. Remember? I'd actually call myself a philosophically inclined, ecumenically prone, evangelically charged, Trans-Denominationalist!

I mean, that's a legitimate issue to have, but it immediately makes what was going on a theological rather than scientific dispute. The Church wasn't bothered by scientists sticking to science.

Well, that's not what the big quote in my above indicates. But, then again, I realize you may be pulling ideas from a different source than I and, and you therefore have a little different angle on this. (That's how these things go, isn't it? ... )

 

[Silmarien]

Quasi-protestant. Remember? I'd actually call myself a philosophically inclined, ecumenically prone, Trans-Denominationalist!

It's all Protestant to me. If you protest against Rome, you're a Protestant.

Well, that's not what the big quote in my above indicates. But, then again, I realize you may be pulling ideas from a different source than I and, and you therefore have a little different angle on this. (That's how these things go, isn't it? ... )

Well, the quote doesn't really take into account that there were plenty of other scientists who were working on Copernican astronomy who didn't end up picking fights with the Catholic Church. If you're going to land yourself in that much trouble to begin with, it's not because they didn't like your calculations.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's all Protestant to me. If you protest against Rome, you're a Protestant.

[...hmmm. Seems we still have some vestiges of the Counter-Reformation and Inquisition floating around in here!]

Well, the quote doesn't really take into account that there were plenty of other scientists who were working on Copernican astronomy who didn't end up picking fights with the Catholic Church. If you're going to land yourself in that much trouble to begin with, it's not because they didn't like your calculations.

Well, does the earth move, or doesn't it? Or, do bodies of different weights fall at the same velocity, or don't they?

 

[Silmarien]

[...hmmm. Seems we still have some vestiges of the Counter-Reformation and Inquisition floating around in here!]

Bah, I'm just a Hispanophile, which means opposing all the anti-Spanish, anti-Catholic propaganda out there. And there's about five centuries worth of it!

Well, does the earth move, or doesn't it? Or, do bodies of different weights fall at the same velocity, or don't they?

That first one would depend upon your frame of reference.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bah, I'm just a Hispanophile, which means opposing all the anti-Spanish, anti-Catholic propaganda out there. And there's about five centuries worth of it!

...if it's any comfort, I'm a proponent of Prima-Scriptura and not Sola-Scriptura, and I do recognize and respect the Pope as a "bishop" of the Church, just not as the titular head of the entire kit-and-kaboodle. Same goes for the Patriarchs and their Councils in the Orthodox side of things. In fact, neither am I beholden to Luther or Calvin, or even Billy Graham. Let's just say, I like a large dinner layout at the table, and I don't put my eggs all in one basket.

That first one would depend upon your frame of reference.

I don't know, how about keeping it in the Orthodox (correct) frame of reference?

 

[gaara4158]

So, not wanting to re-hash all that’s been said so far about religion re: science, the point is that science has never been demonstrably corrected by religion, but it has been demonstrably corrected by better science. You don’t have to concede that science and religion have ever once been at odds in all of history to accept this. The point I’m making isn’t an indictment of religion as useless or unproductive, it’s meant to show that expecting science to come up with an explanation for an observed phenomenon has a firmer basis than expecting religion to do so.

 

[gaara4158]

This is rife with those metaphysical assumptions I was talking about. This entire piece rests on certain philosophical positions taken as axiomatic, it seems. For how does Science determine a premise true? Why is empiricism given primacy as to accuracy? Those are all pure metaphysical propositions taken for granted.

It’s epistemic pragmatism. You can’t really get anywhere without it.

 

[Silmarien]

It’s epistemic pragmatism. You can’t really get anywhere without it.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of anti-realists out there who seem to get along just fine. Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Everyone here seems to be a realist, but there's definitely other stuff out there.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Let's say I was an atheist and for some reason I wanted to kill myself. I told you that I hated my life and wanted to end it. Being an atheist, I know that there is no afterlife and I will simply cease to exist. I also know that the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is dying and when that time happens, all humanity will die too. So because all humanity will one day die and cease to exist, the universe will ultimately be no different than if humanity never existed at all. So who cares if my death hurts other people, they will eventually die and all memory of hurt will cease to exist. So atheist, talk me out of suicide. Why should I not kill myself? Explain why life and existence isn't futile? Good luck.

Thank you, but I don't need luck. You have taken the wrong perspective. Just like the Nazis in the first Indiana Jones film, you are looking in the wrong place.

It doesn't matter to you as a living being that your non-existence, or humanity's non-existence, will not matter to non-existent beings. You aren't making a decision as a non-existent being. You are making a decision as a living being. As a living being, you have your life to lose. Unless you are living in a concentration camp and are denied any positive values, you have potential values that you will lose by ending your life. Don't be a fool.

Life is an end-in-itself. You just might be holding on to a false idea -- that this life is just a means to an afterlife. Sure, you don't believe in an afterlife, but you may be treating this life as if it were just a means to something else. When you realize that this life is not just a means to an afterlife that never arrives, you'll realize that this life is sacred -- that it is worthwhile for what it is, and not for what it might bring after death.

So, you are basically being an idiot. Snap out of it and realize that only life can bring you something more valuable than a foolish and wasteful death.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[gaara4158]

I don't know about that. There are plenty of anti-realists out there who seem to get along just fine. Scientific Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Everyone here seems to be a realist, but there's definitely other stuff out there.

Well, there's nothing I can say to a person who will always come back with "I see what you've tried to demonstrate, but the methods you used to demonstrate that might be faulty." Sure, but unless you're personally omnipotent, you're in the same philosophical position as I am. Pragmatism isn't perfect, but if there's something better, let me know.

 

[Silmarien]

Life is an end-in-itself. You just might be holding on to a false idea -- that this life is just a means to an afterlife. Sure, you don't believe in an afterlife, but you may be treating this life as if it were just a means to something else. When you realize that this life is not just a means to an afterlife that never arrives, you'll realize that this life is sacred -- that it is worthwhile for what it is, and not for what it might bring after death.

"Sacred" is an interesting word choice, since that's an inherently religious concept. Is there something in the nature of finite existence that might imbue it with anything approaching sacredness? I don't see how there even could be, unless you're borrowing from Judeo-Christian theology.

I don't think the OP is being an idiot. They're just asking a question that can't be answered, because values are necessarily subjective. If an atheist sees value in their own existence, that's great, but that doesn't mean that anyone else has to see anything worthwhile about it. All is vanity, and no death can be foolish or wasteful. Just absurd.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Thank you, but I don't need luck. You have taken the wrong perspective. Just like the Nazis in the first Indiana Jones film, you are looking in the wrong place.

It doesn't matter to you as a living being that your non-existence, or humanity's non-existence, will not matter to non-existent beings. You aren't making a decision as a non-existent being. You are making a decision as a living being. As a living being, you have your life to lose. Unless you are living in a concentration camp and are denied any positive values, you have potential values that you will lose by ending your life. Don't be a fool.

Life is an end-in-itself. You just might be holding on to a false idea -- that this life is just a means to an afterlife. Sure, you don't believe in an afterlife, but you may be treating this life as if it were just a means to something else. When you realize that this life is not just a means to an afterlife that never arrives, you'll realize that this life is sacred -- that it is worthwhile for what it is, and not for what it might bring after death.

So, you are basically being an idiot. Snap out of it and realize that only life can bring you something more valuable than a foolish and wasteful death.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I honestly have to say that your statement would be exactly what someone would need to hear. Some people need to hear it straight. They need a verbal slap back to reality. Thank you.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So, not wanting to re-hash all that’s been said so far about religion re: science, the point is that science has never been demonstrably corrected by religion, but it has been demonstrably corrected by better science. You don’t have to concede that science and religion have ever once been at odds in all of history to accept this. The point I’m making isn’t an indictment of religion as useless or unproductive, it’s meant to show that expecting science to come up with an explanation for an observed phenomenon has a firmer basis than expecting religion to do so.

But religion is not in the business of explaining observed phenomena in the same manner as Science is. Religion is about teleological cause, first movers and the ilk. Even in pagan religions this is the case. Look at how Hellenistic authors addressed natural phenomena like stillbirths or congenital deformities. They were omens sure, but this was their praecipient cause, not the proximate one, which may be factors of that specific womb it gestated in (even in Livy, a great lover of omens).

So yes, Science works better in the field it was designed for. Religion is not, nor has ever been, tasked with this - in spite of the modern myth to the contrary. A cursory look at any mythology shows this, as multiple myths may co-opt the same phenomena. A good example is the Sun in Egypt, which is the Eye of Horus, the Solar Barque of Ra, a ball pushed by the scarab Khepri, and birthed and swallowed by Hathor - at the same time and on occasion multiples used in the same text! The point is not practical explanation, but supplication or relation to the primary reality dimly perceived beyond the mundane. Do you really think educated Romans thought that sacrifices were really consumed by the gods? That the smoke somehow wafted to wherever they were? Augustine wrote intently on this in City of God, illustrating the pagan understanding as well, if you are interested.
This is how ritual steps in, that the simple mundane act of washing or cutting an animal's neck, could have deep metaphysical implications. It simply does not make sense to try and cast an aspect of religion as merely a weak substitute for science - they have never really operated with the same aims. This is why Socrates was denounced in Athens for denying the gods, on metaphysical questions, but Aristotle for his empiric observations, often against foundation myths, was not.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is no question, that many religious beliefs have had to be adapted because of scientific discoveries. On the other hand, science has not needed to adapt, because of religious beliefs.

Science has always adapted due to religious beliefs. It came into existence because of Scholasticism, which has deep religious overtones. The idea of God as sustainer of the world, that it is ordered and regular, is implicitly there.

Similarly, after the Renaissance and the Reformation, Science was changed by philosophic/religious ideas like mind/body duality to consider the world in new ways. That is why animals came to be seen as biological machines, and why mechanistic explanations came to predominate. This is also why vivisection came to be seen as more acceptable practice, which shifted the old debate between empiric observers and dissecters in Medicine, in the latter's favour.
Similarly, Priestley and others supported Phlogiston in Chemistry, and the reason Lavousier could set it aside, was the spirit of the times that no longer thought in such immaterial ways.
The same can be said of the acceptance of Geology, which only really became controversial as part of the opposition to Evolution.

So religion has deeply influenced Science, via its deep influence upon the culture from within which the Scientists are working. The Sciences thus adapted in part due to religion, although you could frame this as 'religion getting out of the way of the Sciences', but that is a post-fact rationalisation, little more.
It is the same reason stem-cell research was opposed on ethical grounds, as detritus of Christian culture, which shifted the research in favour of pleripotent cells instead of harvesting the embryonic variety. If the latter was uncontroversial, the ultimately better prospects of the former might never even been thought viable.

I think it a bit foolish to juxtapose religion and science, as if they are somehow two sides of a coin. I mean, we don't juxtapose mathematics and animal husbandry, which obviously function in different ways, though one can vaguely be applied to the other.

 

[gaara4158]

So yes, Science works better in the field it was designed for. Religion is not, nor has ever been, tasked with this - in spite of the modern myth to the contrary.

Then you shouldn’t have a problem expecting science to fill the gaps in our understanding of observed phenomena as it always has in the past. Religious myth isn’t always dogma fabricated out of whole cloth; often it is based on observations that x happens when we do y. Even if these observations aren’t made under rigorous conditions, the element of recognizing correlations between x and y is a practice of science, not religion. The religious element is in the mythical explanation; without knowledge of germ theory, the religious might conclude that washing your hands before eating is a way to stave off a curse from God. They’re not wrong that it works, they’re wrong about how it works. Germ theory corrects them. Science has always been the way to determine how things work the way they do. That’s why in matters not yet apprehended by science, it is not unreasonable to expect that we might one day find a scientific explanation. It is unreasonable to expect to find a religious explanation, because religion doesn’t have a separate method of investigation. Anything we actually find, we find through science.

The only gaps we can’t reasonably expect science to fill are the ones fundamentally uninvestigable to it, and the only advantage religion has there is a lack of rules and accountability. It can be adjusted to fit any paradigm or it can be held dogmatically in the face of alternatives. The problem with this is that once you accept a religious explanation for a mystery of the universe, you risk importing all kinds of religious baggage along with it that has a real influence on your decision making. I don’t think I have to name any examples to impress on you how catastrophic this can be. If your religious explanation does not carry any baggage with it, on the other hand, what does it matter? It’s just a conversation stopper, same as calling it a brute fact.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then you shouldn’t have a problem expecting science to fill the gaps in our understanding of observed phenomena as it always has in the past. Religious myth isn’t always dogma fabricated out of whole cloth; often it is based on observations that x happens when we do y. Even if these observations aren’t made under rigorous conditions, the element of recognizing correlations between x and y is a practice of science, not religion. The religious element is in the mythical explanation; without knowledge of germ theory, the religious might conclude that washing your hands before eating is a way to stave off a curse from God. They’re not wrong that it works, they’re wrong about how it works. Germ theory corrects them. Science has always been the way to determine how things work the way they do. That’s why in matters not yet apprehended by science, it is not unreasonable to expect that we might one day find a scientific explanation. It is unreasonable to expect to find a religious explanation, because religion doesn’t have a separate method of investigation. Anything we actually find, we find through science.

...I don't think the word "anything" in the last sentence of your paragraph is actually fitting. Maybe the term "mostly" is what you're looking for since, let's face it, there are things that pertain to Christian Revelation which, if true, no human being who has ever lived could have come to know simply on their own through scientific investigation. For instance, when Jesus asks Peter, "Who do you say that I am?," we are met with an epistemological complication that only the religion itself can address. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, but this epistemological scheme isn't open to science, and it will never be open to science.

The only gaps we can’t reasonably expect science to fill are the ones fundamentally uninvestigable to it, and the only advantage religion has there is a lack of rules and accountability. It can be adjusted to fit any paradigm or it can be held dogmatically in the face of alternatives. The problem with this is that once you accept a religious explanation for a mystery of the universe, you risk importing all kinds of religious baggage along with it that has a real influence on your decision making. I don’t think I have to name any examples to impress on you how catastrophic this can be. If your religious explanation does not carry any baggage with it, on the other hand, what does it matter? It’s just a conversation stopper, same as calling it a brute fact.

I wouldn't say that the Christian religion, which implies ancient Jewish modes of thought and/or Hermeneutical application (even if often couched in Greek language), lacks rules and accountability. It's just that the rules even within the Bible itself are minimal and more generally implied than forthrightly explicated. Also, Christianity can't fit just any paradigm, Gaara, although it is flexibile to some extent because it wasn't delivered to us [humanity] in a comprehensive manner, nor was that which is revealed in the Bible meant to explain the world in whole; God left plenty for us to discover on our own, more than plenty in fact, and it is only the most ardent of Fundamentalist who will insist otherwise and try to rig an approach to the Bible that construes and overextends assumptions belying their own brand of preconceived theology.

Thus, Christianity doesn't by any inherent necessity have to become a "conversation stopper." In fact, in my own experience, I can honestly say that it was the taking up of the Bible as a new Christian a few decades ago by which I gained a new motivation to begin studying not only various nuances of Christian theology, but also the various sciences, history, philosophy, and other world religions. Frankly, up until the moment at which I cracked open the Bible for the first time, my life was pretty much focused on being a graphic artist and playing video games and Dungeons and Dragons with my friends, among other more unscrupulous things. The Bible helped open me up to a much larger world. (In fact, it probably wouldn't be too much to say that it was the Christian faith that spurred me to take an interest in Education in a more general way ... )