Atheism isn't a belief?

Wild-assed guessing has been demonstrated to be a rather inaccurate method of determining what is true. Same goes for personal preference, since it's been demonstrated that reality doesn't accede to our wishes.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-22-2005 06:50 AM

Woof! Resistant to being questioned 'in a scientifically objective way' you mean. Others here have agreed with me here that science is a limited enterprise and necessarily (given what it limits itself to investigating) can only deal with that for which scienfically objective evidence exists. Science, in limiting itself so, cannot make the jump to claim that it can comment on everything. For science to say the natural is all there is, it would first have to demonstrate objectively that the natural is all there is - (and not make philosophical claims that "there is no reason to think it won't because it has done so much") And this it has not done. Science has rightly built a wall up around itself and is focused on what lies within the walls. Commenting on what is outside those walls is not sciences task. That what is inside the walls is described fantasically by science should be no surprise. What else would you expect when such well-aimed artillery is pointed at an immovable target. Not to minimise the achievments of science but it is afterall shooting fish in a barrelIt should be noted that in approaching boundary issues, science becomes more and more speculative and less and less objective. Words like "We think that, could be, may possibly be, it looks like, we assume that"..etc, litter the ground in those areas. Tentitive science is a valid thing to do as a way of opening avenues of progress. But it is not the same as objective science - and shouldn't be mistaken as such. And there is much to be tentive aboutMe, I could not progress with belief if it was blind and expected me to accept that for which there was no objective (according to the defintion of objective in that field) way of questioning it, evaluating it, testing it, trusting it.I think that is one of the biggest misunderstandings I come across. This word 'faith'. I have faith in my motorcycles brakes to stop me quick, it's tyres to grip in the wet, the engine not to seize up at 120mph (we don't have many speed cameras in Ireland). Why do I have faith in these things? Because I have learned to trust them. They have proven themselves to me. That's only an analogy of faith on God so lets not push it where it's not intended to go. Faith in God is precisely the same. It is not (in my case anyway) blind, it's there precisely because it has passed all reasonable tests.I just cannot see how anyone could believe something without obejective evidence. And I have more than sufficient objective evidence. I just don't limit my definition of objective to the scienctific/man made definitions. If God, then he defines objective not man.

Who is 'me'? "I'm me!" Well then who is 'I'm'? "I'm I'm?" Who is I'm (the first one)?. "I'm me!" Circular? If your referring to no purpose, that pre-supposes a naturalistic-only world. Which begs the question. How does someone who believes their brain to compose of an accidental, 'purposeless' arrangement of atoms know to trust that it's brain is an accidental, 'purposeless' arrangement of atoms. Beward a circular argument here too. There is only one person in the world who can provide objective evidence of that - and they're all dead. We are who we are because of the circumstances surrounding our existance. Natural circumstances result in a quite different answer to supernatural circustamces.This message has been edited by iano, 22-Aug-2005 12:16 PM

I agree totally. Thus a somewhat more rational approach would appear profitable. Firstly though the person would have to decide for themselves that a quest was going to undertaken. Then they might consider how to embark on something other than a wild goose chase

No.
If X conflicts with Y, the question becomes, "Which is wrong" -- if both are open to being questioned. If religion is the 'X', as it is resistant to having its truthfulness questioned, the answer is simply, "Y is wrong." So, Y is not determined to be wrong based upon the evidence; it is simply determined to be wrong because it's inconsistent with X. Yup. Science sticks to what is relevant. Well, your 'Supernatural' thread certainly demonstrated that you're very good at misinterpreting the evidence.

Presuming that reality conforms to your personal preference, then dismissing all evidence against, and accepting only evidence for, has also been demonstrated to be a rather inaccurate method.

Cause is irrelevant, as it changes nothing. I don't lose IQ points if I share a common ancestor with other apes, and I don't gain IQ points if I'm specially created by a god. Regardless of circumstance, I am an exceptionally intelligent human being. (With a rather large ego.)This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-22-2005 08:08 AM

Reasons for God?Science can produce credible theories as to what happened in the first moments of the universes existance, some claiming to take us back to within a tiny fraction of a second of the Big Bang. Science cannot go back beyond the 'zero time point'. As Edgar Andrews indicates; "Thus it follows that science, even at it's most speculative. must of necessity stop short of offering any explaination, or even description of the actual event of origin"Science can speculate as to how the world came into being. Science cannot explain why it should have done so. Julian Huxley wrote " Science has removed the obscuring veil from many phenomena, much to the beneift of the human race; but it confronts us with a basic and fundemental mystery - the mystery of existance in general...Why does the world exist". More recently, Stephan Hawkings has said much the same thing: "Even if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern?"Science can demonstrate the consistancy of scientific or natural laws in both space and time. Science cannot tell us how they came to be there or why they should be exactly as they are. Science can tell us that light travels at 186,282.397 miles per second, but cannot explain why it does not travel faster or slowerScience can provide helpful statistics on demographics. Science cannot explain why human beings exist. Nor can it tell us why we are self-conscious individuals. Sir John Eccles, a Nobel Prize-winning pioneer in brain research confirms that these questions are beyond the competance of science: "Science cannot explain the existance of each of us as a unique self, nor can it answer such fundemental questions as "Who am I?", "How did I come to be at a certain place and time?", "What happens after death?" These are all mysteries beyond science"Science can tell us a great deal about our physical make-up. Science cannot explain why the mind exists and functions as it does. Oxford biochemist Arthur Peacocke wrote "Science can investigate all the physical aspects of the brain but there is still something about the mind - and therefore about who you really are - it cannot get at"Science can enable man to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capable of wiping out the entire human race. Science cannot remove the causes of war by changing peoples attitudes and behaviourScience can study the results of human behaviour. Science cannot explain the principles involved. It can say nothing about love, justice, freedom, beauty, goodness, joy or peace. It cannot assess ethical values or moral principles, nor can it distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong. To say that science can offer explanations for everything within human experience is to ignore every moral question that has ever been raised.Science can specifically study and analyse trends in religious belief and behaviour. Science cannot supply any reason why either should exist. The subject is simply outside its terms of reference(The above from "Does God believe in Athiests" by John Blanchard quotes amply referenced if you want them...)Point is Chiroptera. Science is a very limited. The only people in the world who have claimed have found answers to these and many more vitally important questions are those who have come to realise that "God did it"One swallow doesn't make a summer. But billions over the years have believed in God. Millions of those have been sane. rational, intelligent, thinking, initially-skeptical people. They are evidence and their evidence demands a verdict. A reasoned verdict. Science cannot offer any explanation for it.Reason for God Chiroptera? Because God, in the face of the above, is not at all an unreasonable place to start a quest. My advice (for what it's worth): start with the destination, then go on the journey.

Even the physical link with apes is a rather tentitive one.The link between your aesthetic dimension (which can generate strong feelings), your self-awareness, vastly superior intelligence, historical and political aspect, propositional language, your ability to (usually ) reason complexly, your mathematical skills, your cultural and scientific achievements, your unique relationships with the opposite sex, your (or at least many others) spiritual dimension and your ability to base your actions on a moral framework etc are NOT shown to derivable from characteristics that an ape may have.These are not proof of God (although they do provide some circumstantial evidence to consider) but nor or they in any way shape or form proof (circumstantial or otherwise) that your great, great.g.g.g.g.g.g.g.g.g.g grandfather was an ape either.No mans land is about the most you can say about it

You are correct. You are indeed presuming. And not very accurately at that

That's a nice post, iano. It seems to me that it would make a good OP for a new thread.Trying to tie it back in with the OP of this thread, if you have to "let God in" first in order to begin your journey, or to come to terms with His existence, then does that imply that the default (the do-nothing) position is "not letting God in"? That would mean that, according to you, a-theism isn't an active belief as such.PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-22-2005 09:38 AM

Whats the conflict? If science is only a part of the whole (which scientists themselves accept - if not you), science can be right in what it objectively shows to be (but not all the tentitive, speculative stuff - at least not yet - unless your presuming again). God can exist and science can be right. You imagine they are opponants. But there is no objective basis for that viewYou suggest that both are being open to question but you forgot to say that the basis you presume for questioning X and Y is the scientific one (or 'objectivity' defined by science). Who appointed Science to be the judge and jury and executioner in this? You don't see a little bit of circular reasoning lurking here? You keep on forgetting to finish your sentences. Add...."to scientific pursuit" and you'll be spot on.

We all are at some point. that point would normally be defined as our birth. From there, we can only move upward. No not at all. I do however like your analogy a lot so I will continue with it.
In my case, a tour bus named "Religion" came along and began filling my head with stories about God and jesus. Pretty soon (well by about the age of 10) I began to see that this bus was just going around in circles and was being driven by a blind driver who couldn't see beyond the end of the street. He just kept turning left at every junction. Up some of the other possible turns I began to see tantalizing glimpses of answers beyond any that were available on my bus but when I asked why we couldn't go that way I was told that this bus had always gone on the same circular path and had no reason to ever change.
Pretty soon after that I opened the emergency door and escaped from the bus to nowhere then hopped on the first science bus that came along. This science bus may well never reach its final destination but at least it is always covering brand new ground. The ride is fascinating and is continually pushing onto new roads that have never been travelled before. In the far distance I can see glimpses of explanations for everything including first beginnings. I may never reach these places myself but I am content to know that others are already almost there. I don't (and never will) fully understand the complex science that they are working with as they clear a path for my bus to travel. Already they have a gravel path leading right back to the big bang and blueprints labeled "M-Theory" that point out ways to extend the path beyond it. Other paths are getting closer and closer to a place called "possible abiogenesis" but nobody has managed to get all the way there yet.
This is hardly surprising since the pioneers have only been exploring the path for a few hundred short years. They are constantly designing and building better vehicles to travel down these paths in an attempt to reach their goal. Given a few hundred more years I see no reason why the new roads will not be built to take the science bus all the way up to and well beyond these difficult to reach places.Meanwhile the religion bus is still going round and round in an ever decreasing circular path to nowhere with less and less bastions in which God can hide away from the revealing light of science. I am sure it will. I never expect to reach any specific destination since to do so will be tantamount to the end of my life anyway. To me, the concept of a life in which there is nothing left to learn is worse than death. Terminal boredom is my idea of hell.
One day I will most assuredly bid fairwell to my companions on the science bus. At that time I will be more than content to know that the bus will just keep going on its endless voyage of discovery with my children firmly seated in the front row.

I've been told not to post 'billions of posts' at a time (there was two at that time! ). Maybe someday this. First I hope that "A reasoned proof of God" will get to make an airing. "Letting God in" or "coming to terms with his existance" is an impossiblity starting from scratch. You can't let in something you don't believe or come to terms with the existance of something you don't have any reason to think there are terms to come to terms with. I was suggesting that one could start in position zero. Or put yourself in a vacuum of belief. The agnostic type position. A clean slate as it were.From there you decide to investigate the possibility that "God did it". All that is required to move a fraction away from zero, is to let the possibility that God did it exist (destination). Then beginsthe journey to find out. No belief, active or otherwise required or otherwise is required at this point. It is simple a decision where disbelief that God did it, is suspended. Suspended so that activity can commence and evidence can be looked at through untinted spectacles. But unlike say PurpleYouko, who says her mind isn't closed (yet is moving actively in the + infinity direction(towards everything is natural) and so, is unlikely to find, by these means, evidence in the other direction -infinity or God) the person actively seeks out whether God did it. They make a choice to get off the bus headed towards naturalistic explanations (a destination which will never be reached) and hops on the bus God-did-it...which presumes the destination (suspends disbelief) and goes on the journey to find out whether such a destination exists - which may well be achieved in ones lifetime. If one wants answers to lifes questions, then one should pick the bus which at least offers the potential to provide answers. Or so I would have thought.I reckon atheism is active in whatever form it is. The agnostic is the inactive one. He is in the zero, equilibrium position, resting between two valleys. For anybody to hold either to theism or athiesm means they have to do work to get up off the valley floor. And there is only one valley floor between God/No God so the athiest can't occupy it.Purple Youkos defintion of weak/scientific athiesm (aided and abetted by yours truly) gave two push factors to it. The first (weak athiesm) said that due to there being no objective evidence for God, God was unlikely to exist. Such a statement isn't made in a vacuum ('objective' a word narrowly and defined by science, occupies the vacuum). In a true vacuum and with no other means to evaluate the reason for the existance of the world, then the first time somebody told this person that God did it they would have no cause to disbelieve it. So why not believe it? The reason an athiest says "God is unlikely" is because when somebody says "God did it" the atheist has a valid objective (as defined by science) alternative explanation that says he didn't do it. This is active belief in what science says and in the case of the weak athiest, who has no means to critically evaluate the data, the belief is more or less blind.That's how I see it. Agnostics holding the valley floor, atheists and theists some way up the valley slopes. And activity is how you describe things moving up slopes (or rolling them downhill from agnostic mountain peaks - whichever you fancy)

Good. It took my the whole weekend to think of it . Then Primordial Egg came along and I hatched valley slopes for the (a)theists to clamber up! Hope you like it to so have a read when you get a chance. A that old rascal. Religion. I'd have a bit to say about Religion having absolutely nothing to do with God (you'll remember Jesus calling the Religious of his day, the Pharisees, "tombs; white washed on the outside but on the inside full of dead mens bones" - he apparently didn't think much of Religion either ). Not surprised you hopped off. But that's anothers story Doesn't look very much like God was driving this bus. Sounds very much like man driving it. And of course you have no reason to think man will get it right. Like: Hindusim, Buddism, New Ageism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovahs Witnessism, Mormonism, Islamism,Christianityism etc etc etc. Logic statement for you:All Religions are correct
All Religions are incorrect
God exists and has nothing whatsoever to do with Religion(hint: it's the last one!) Closer and closer... but no cigar, you might say. Don't think theres any danger of science catching lung cancer (he said lighting up another smoke). You hopped off one bus you felt was the wrong one. You hopped on another which admits (at least it's more realistic and sensibly humble adherants do) that it will never arrive at a destination that answers humanities questions. Hmmm. Given the mish mash that is man-made religion, and given that God has nothing to do with what man decides is true, might you not be throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Any chance of it? See comments to Chiroptera on a recent post. Science has boundaries and whilst it excels within them, there are boundaries it can't cross. I could pile in the quotes but believe me when I say that Science itself says this of itself. Science is only 1 bus. It may get a set of off-road tyres and be refitted with a dirty great v12 turbocharged engine. It is not nor can it be all buses to all men. Mine too. It's one of the reasons for me looking for God. Much as you may think otherwise, Science is no enemy of a belief in God. 40% of scientists (cited earlier) believe (in 1997 anyway) in God. No conflict...and why should there be. It only the philosophical position adopted by some people (who have nothing but speculation to go on at this point) which creates the myth that there is conflict. I like science. It's the "we think that..", "could be...", "the evidence appears to indicate that..." brigade who try to mis-use science to comment on what it can't comment on who do it a dis-service Are you so sure of the bus your on? Science: the current orthodoxy (and no orthodoxy has ever survived forever), no destination possible, only able to work within a very narrow frame of reference, often subjective and speculative, subject to hoaxes which can last years, often anti-theistic (although it is not scientific to be so). For your kids sake, it would be great to be sure your 100% sure before you strap 'em into their own ejector seats. Are you so sure?