I would also like to point out that Atheism is no more scientific than believing in a deity. You can't prove god doesn't exist in the same way you can't prove that god does exist.
I would also like to point out that Atheism is no more scientific than believing in a deity. You can't prove god doesn't exist in the same way you can't prove that god does exist.
depends on your understanding of the scientific methodOriginally Posted by KT.
i.e. opinion of hypothetico-deductive model, falsifiability etc.
If science is a purely inductive exercise, then invisible pink unicorns and God are both outside of its province and it would be "unscientific" to make an assertion on the existence of invisible pink unicorns. Note that even on this (totally castrated) model, particular hypotheses concerning miraculous interventions ascribed to God(s) can be tested for.
Broadly, when people say there is no evidence for the existence of God (i.e. taking an empiricist position on the issue), in longhand what they are saying is
a) God is an unfalisfiable concept
b)there are an infinity of unfalsifiable concepts
c1)I do not accept the existence of a valid metaphysics, nor do I presume before argument the existence of a deity/a holy book/a church which can infallibly issue true statements
c2)therefore the scientific method is the only objective criterion for verifying a particular thing's existence
c3)it therefore follows that all unfalsifiable concepts are equally objectively likely/unlikely
d)I don't make it part of my daily business to consider the infinity of unfalisfiable, possibly existent concepts and make supplication to them
e)it is not scientific to reject scientific models on the basis of unfalsifiable, possible existent concepts
it follows that it is not in my daily business to worship God, nor is it scientific to postulate Him
Atheists are quite right, all of this does follow and b) d) and e) ought surely to be accepted by any thinking human being ( a) oughtn't to be too much trouble to anyone either, because no given number of miracles or incarnations can constitute the existence of God; just as no given number of fake miracles or false incarnations can constitute His nonexistence); having said that, doing the things in d) and e) might be a nice way to unwind
A better challenge would be the (implicit) propositions c1 and c2, because c3 is the statement on which the argument stands or falls
Last edited by Think; 01-16-2011 at 04:15 AM. Reason: allow me to spell out the trouble with c
For paradise among this world
Is finding love in boy and girl
Sig'd
PANDAS
If you don't like them, then get the fuck out.
I'll rebut this in simpler terms: you also can't prove that Zeus does not exist, nor fairies and genies, nor a teapot floating around in the rings of saturn, nor Think's unicorn, etc. Your point is what every armchair agnostic says to feel cleverer than the atheists.
Atheism is, in fact, a good deal more scientific than believing in a deity, because it does not involve believing in something completely unfounded by evidence.
I accept this. Yes I agree with this statement now that I think about it. However I would phrase it as "less unscientific", but I suppose that's just semantics.
From my experiences there are two types of Atheists: those who don't believe in a god and those who absolutely know there isn't a god. (Granted, I haven't studied Atheism or for that matter any other major belief system besides Catholicism in grade school and some Taoism.)
I guess I'm referring more to the Atheists who seem to unequivocally know that a god does not exist. I find that unscientific. As much as I don't believe that invisible pink unicorns roam the earth and I find it extremely unlikely that they do, I'm still open to the possibility. However, I don't waste my time postulating over the existence of invisible pink unicorns because I find it unscientific, therefore futile to do so.
Last edited by KT.; 01-16-2011 at 08:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks