3 ms·

I hate the clickbait title. I hate how it will be misunderstood. I hate that the subtleties in his statement will be ignored. And to the people who care abou

I hate the clickbait title. I hate how it will be misunderstood. I hate that the subtleties in his statement will be ignored. And to the people who care about this, his claim about atheism is pedantic. "I do not believe aliens abducted my dad." Sorry, but that's a perfectly rational thing to say, in all but the most academic of circles. In every-day life, I don't need to be so cautious as to say, "I have no evidence that aliens abducted my dad." Drawing a distinction between those two is a waste of time, and some in the theist crowd will point to this and say, "Scientific American says denying God is inconsistent with the Scientific Method!" This will do harm in the real world, and not any good in the academic world. You know what else I say? F=ma I know about quantum mechanics and relativity, thanks. I don't need a Scientific American article telling me, breathlessly, that "F=ma is false!" In context, F=ma is a perfectly valid thing to say. Imagine if Scientific American had a headline: "Earth Is Not Round". [1] Isn't that an awful clickbait title? Does the content of the article really inform anyone who actually cares about the subject? I'm not going to go to a GIS Conference and declare, "The world is ROUND." That would be moronic. I'm not going to get drawn in to a discussion, "Yes, it's possible the world actually IS flat, but has only appeared to be round so far to all of the experiments I'm aware of." F=ma. The world is round. I believe God doesn't exist. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-roun...

rcthompson 8y ago
I agree. His logic seems to be that any firm belief at all is inconsistent with the scientific method, which is ridiculous, as you say. I wonder what he thinks of priors in Bayesian statistics.
gamblor956 8y ago
It's not pedantic. One is a statement of belief. The other one is not. In the context of a discussion on belief systems, it's the difference between night and day. And he's correct: atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, since it posits something that cannot be proven or disproven using existing scientific method.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  There are people who call themselves atheists who define atheism as carefully as you want them to. It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." We're debating how many people use a term the way you want them to, and how many people use a term the way I want them to. Hence: pedantics. EDIT: Try this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method. This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with the scientific method, since agnostics merely posit that they don't know whether or not God exists. Some couch it in language like "there's no evidence" but not all agnostics base their skepticism on a reason consistent with the scientific method. TLDR: Theists believe "God." Atheists believe "no God." Agnostics don't have a belief either way. This is not pedantry, it's a fundamental difference in belief systems.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a God. “Strong” or “hard" atheism is the belief that there is no God. (Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or not of God is either unknown or unknowable, it is, in either form, compatible with theism, atheism, and strong atheism, since belief in a position is not equivalent to belief that that belief is knowledge or that the subject of that belief is knowable.) > It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Its the absence of belief in a thing in which belief cannot be justified by science, it is not merely compatible with science but the only position possible within a scientific framework. Strong atheism is also compatible with science. (As are both forms of agnosticism.) Assuming God was a testable hypothesis (which it is, to all analysis to date, not even in principle), a non-contingent atheism—a nonbelief or negative belief in God immune to review based on subsequent evidence—would be inconsistent with science, but then that's an apparently counterfactual assumption and not even clearly a common form of atheism.

rcthompson 8y ago

I agree. His logic seems to be that any firm belief at all is inconsistent with the scientific method, which is ridiculous, as you say. I wonder what he thinks of priors in Bayesian statistics.

gamblor956 8y ago

It's not pedantic. One is a statement of belief. The other one is not. In the context of a discussion on belief systems, it's the difference between night and day. And he's correct: atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, since it posits something that cannot be proven or disproven using existing scientific method.

VikingCoder 8y ago
There are people who call themselves atheists who define atheism as carefully as you want them to. It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." We're debating how many people use a term the way you want them to, and how many people use a term the way I want them to. Hence: pedantics. EDIT: Try this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y
- gamblor956 8y ago
  It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method. This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with the scientific method, since agnostics merely posit that they don't know whether or not God exists. Some couch it in language like "there's no evidence" but not all agnostics base their skepticism on a reason consistent with the scientific method. TLDR: Theists believe "God." Atheists believe "no God." Agnostics don't have a belief either way. This is not pedantry, it's a fundamental difference in belief systems.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a God. “Strong” or “hard" atheism is the belief that there is no God. (Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or not of God is either unknown or unknowable, it is, in either form, compatible with theism, atheism, and strong atheism, since belief in a position is not equivalent to belief that that belief is knowledge or that the subject of that belief is knowable.) > It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Its the absence of belief in a thing in which belief cannot be justified by science, it is not merely compatible with science but the only position possible within a scientific framework. Strong atheism is also compatible with science. (As are both forms of agnosticism.) Assuming God was a testable hypothesis (which it is, to all analysis to date, not even in principle), a non-contingent atheism—a nonbelief or negative belief in God immune to review based on subsequent evidence—would be inconsistent with science, but then that's an apparently counterfactual assumption and not even clearly a common form of atheism.