6 ms·

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that e

by rdruxn 8y ago

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that. He seems to understand it perfectly whereas you seem to be mischaracterizing his words

Latty 8y ago
His point is bunk because it is fundamentally mischaracterising the argument of atheists. It isn't about there being literally proof of no god, it is about how we act in our daily setting. The classic counter is Russell's teapot. You can't prove to me that there is not a teapot, undetectable by our current tooling (tiny, invisible, etc...), orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. That said, if I were to ask you "does this thing exist", you'd say "no". Sure, there is technically a chance, in the way we can't prove gravity won't suddenly stop working tomorrow, but there is no evidence for it, and no reason to act like it is there. An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic. It is true that, colloquially, we compress "there is no reason to believe that this is true" and "this is false" to the same thing, because realistically we can almost never say the second absolutely with anything outside the deep theoretical, and we fundamentally behave the same way given both.
- TheMagicHorsey 8y ago
  Exactly. This whole atheism vs. agnosticism debate is about semantics. Ultimately the question to ask is, is it rational to act like there are gods. An atheist says no, a theist says yes, and an agnostic is neutral on the subject. This is not the same thing as asking if there is a god or not, which is not answerable.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic. The dictionary definition of atheism (Chambers, 1990) Atheism: The belief that there is no god. Agnostic: Someone who believes one can only know about material things and so believes that nothing can be known about the existance of God. The author seems to be using these definitions, so it's not surprising people are confused if they've invented their own definitions.
  - Latty 8y ago
    As noted, most of the time (including in this dictionary definition), we do not distinguish between "proven false" and "not proven true", because there are very few cases where such a distinction matters. "Belief"s are not immutable - we believe in things, but given evidence we can change those beliefs. If I say "I believe in man-made climate change", I am not arguing that I would not change my opinion if evidence was provided that it wasn't the case.
  - rgbrenner 8y ago
    Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition: Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods This is consistent with atheist writers like Dawkins. Can you explain the theological background of Chambers, since you seem to think he's some sort of authority on the matter? Edit: This from wikipedia on the Chambers dictionary: The Chambers Dictionary is widely used by British crossword solvers and setters, and by Scrabble players (though it is no longer the official Scrabble dictionary). It contains many more dialectal, archaic, unconventional and eccentric words than its rivals, and is noted for its occasional wryly humorous definitions. Examples of such definitions include those for éclair ("a cake, long in shape but short in duration") and middle-aged ("between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner").[2] These jocular definitions were removed by the publisher in the 1970s, but many of them were reinstated in 1983 because of the affection in which they were held by readers. So you're using a dictionary whose purpose is entertainment, rather than accuracy.. and insisting this is the definition we should all use? What a joke.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic. There's a little bit more nuance to it than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist. And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle.
  - Latty 8y ago
    > And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle. Strong Atheist: There is no god, I can prove it. Weak Atheist: There is no god, there is no reason to believe there is one. Agnostic: I don't know if there is a god. The difference is not subtle. It is the difference between having an opinion and not having one. Strong vs Weak atheism is basically a worthless distinction to most people, because having no evidence of something means you don't believe in it in the scientific method. No, it isn't proof of the non-existence, but we still act like it doesn't exist until proven otherwise, otherwise we have to believe literally anything that you can imagine that isn't provably non-existent (back to Russel's teapot).
krferriter 8y ago
No, an atheist is simply someone who does not affirmatively believe the claim that there are gods. This does not inherently entail the claim that there are no gods. If you do not accept the claim that there are gods, you are an atheist. Nothing about that breaches the Scientific Method. No evidence is required in order to neglect to accept a claim which was also not presented with scientific evidence. The author says that atheists need evidence of absence to support their claim that gods don't exist, but atheism does not entail that claim, so the author has some pretty substantial misunderstandings about how the scientific method works and what claims are going on here and when evidence is needed. I do not need evidence in order to reject a claim that the center of the earth is made out of Earl Grey tea. I can say "I don't believe that is correct" and then just continue on with my life as it was before someone told me that with no evidence.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Which dictionary are you using for your definition of atheism please?
  - krferriter 8y ago
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism (2) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist And even if an atheist holds the position that a god does not exist, based on our current evidence, this is the default null hypothesis, and this rejection of the claim that a god does exist does not require a proof. The assertion that a god exists requires proof. The author's insistence that atheists who simply default to the null hypothesis in the question of whether a god exists need to provide evidence is the one violating the scientific method. If someone tells the author that BBQ pork sandwiches cure cancer does he just accept it as true until someone proves that they don't cure cancer?
hurryskurry 8y ago
Actually, not forming a belief in something, i.e., not positing the existence of an entity without evidence is a sound practice. And that is actually exactly what we do in science. E.g., Russell's teapot
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
It requires a double negative "a belief in non-belief" which is an absurdity to make an argument. Nothing more. If I am to change my position of non belief in faeries, gods, little green men, moons made of green cheese, and telepathy all it takes is a little repeatable evidence. That is not belief in their absence. When the evidence is there I will be a) very surprised b) changing my opinion.

by rdruxn 8y ago

Latty 8y ago

His point is bunk because it is fundamentally mischaracterising the argument of atheists. It isn't about there being literally proof of no god, it is about how we act in our daily setting. The classic counter is Russell's teapot. You can't prove to me that there is not a teapot, undetectable by our current tooling (tiny, invisible, etc...), orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. That said, if I were to ask you "does this thing exist", you'd say "no". Sure, there is technically a chance, in the way we can't prove gravity won't suddenly stop working tomorrow, but there is no evidence for it, and no reason to act like it is there. An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic. It is true that, colloquially, we compress "there is no reason to believe that this is true" and "this is false" to the same thing, because realistically we can almost never say the second absolutely with anything outside the deep theoretical, and we fundamentally behave the same way given both.

TheMagicHorsey 8y ago
Exactly. This whole atheism vs. agnosticism debate is about semantics. Ultimately the question to ask is, is it rational to act like there are gods. An atheist says no, a theist says yes, and an agnostic is neutral on the subject. This is not the same thing as asking if there is a god or not, which is not answerable.
DanBC 8y ago
> An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic. The dictionary definition of atheism (Chambers, 1990) Atheism: The belief that there is no god. Agnostic: Someone who believes one can only know about material things and so believes that nothing can be known about the existance of God. The author seems to be using these definitions, so it's not surprising people are confused if they've invented their own definitions.
- Latty 8y ago
  As noted, most of the time (including in this dictionary definition), we do not distinguish between "proven false" and "not proven true", because there are very few cases where such a distinction matters. "Belief"s are not immutable - we believe in things, but given evidence we can change those beliefs. If I say "I believe in man-made climate change", I am not arguing that I would not change my opinion if evidence was provided that it wasn't the case.
- rgbrenner 8y ago
  Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition: Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods This is consistent with atheist writers like Dawkins. Can you explain the theological background of Chambers, since you seem to think he's some sort of authority on the matter? Edit: This from wikipedia on the Chambers dictionary: The Chambers Dictionary is widely used by British crossword solvers and setters, and by Scrabble players (though it is no longer the official Scrabble dictionary). It contains many more dialectal, archaic, unconventional and eccentric words than its rivals, and is noted for its occasional wryly humorous definitions. Examples of such definitions include those for éclair ("a cake, long in shape but short in duration") and middle-aged ("between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner").[2] These jocular definitions were removed by the publisher in the 1970s, but many of them were reinstated in 1983 because of the affection in which they were held by readers. So you're using a dictionary whose purpose is entertainment, rather than accuracy.. and insisting this is the definition we should all use? What a joke.
mindcrime 8y ago
An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic. There's a little bit more nuance to it than that. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist. And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle.
- Latty 8y ago
  > And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle. Strong Atheist: There is no god, I can prove it. Weak Atheist: There is no god, there is no reason to believe there is one. Agnostic: I don't know if there is a god. The difference is not subtle. It is the difference between having an opinion and not having one. Strong vs Weak atheism is basically a worthless distinction to most people, because having no evidence of something means you don't believe in it in the scientific method. No, it isn't proof of the non-existence, but we still act like it doesn't exist until proven otherwise, otherwise we have to believe literally anything that you can imagine that isn't provably non-existent (back to Russel's teapot).

krferriter 8y ago

No, an atheist is simply someone who does not affirmatively believe the claim that there are gods. This does not inherently entail the claim that there are no gods. If you do not accept the claim that there are gods, you are an atheist. Nothing about that breaches the Scientific Method. No evidence is required in order to neglect to accept a claim which was also not presented with scientific evidence. The author says that atheists need evidence of absence to support their claim that gods don't exist, but atheism does not entail that claim, so the author has some pretty substantial misunderstandings about how the scientific method works and what claims are going on here and when evidence is needed. I do not need evidence in order to reject a claim that the center of the earth is made out of Earl Grey tea. I can say "I don't believe that is correct" and then just continue on with my life as it was before someone told me that with no evidence.

DanBC 8y ago
Which dictionary are you using for your definition of atheism please?
- krferriter 8y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism (2) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist And even if an atheist holds the position that a god does not exist, based on our current evidence, this is the default null hypothesis, and this rejection of the claim that a god does exist does not require a proof. The assertion that a god exists requires proof. The author's insistence that atheists who simply default to the null hypothesis in the question of whether a god exists need to provide evidence is the one violating the scientific method. If someone tells the author that BBQ pork sandwiches cure cancer does he just accept it as true until someone proves that they don't cure cancer?

hurryskurry 8y ago

Actually, not forming a belief in something, i.e., not positing the existence of an entity without evidence is a sound practice. And that is actually exactly what we do in science. E.g., Russell's teapot

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

It requires a double negative "a belief in non-belief" which is an absurdity to make an argument. Nothing more. If I am to change my position of non belief in faeries, gods, little green men, moons made of green cheese, and telepathy all it takes is a little repeatable evidence. That is not belief in their absence. When the evidence is there I will be a) very surprised b) changing my opinion.