4 ms·

Nonsense. The scientific method says that the burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims, not those who do not believe said claims. And that is

Nonsense. The scientific method says that the burden of proof lies on those who make extraordinary claims, not those who do not believe said claims. And that is all. To clarify a bit further, see quote: "You can't prove that God exists!" they accuse (correctly). Yet, hypocritically, strict atheists are guilty of the exact same crime: belief without evidence. This is nonsense. It is not belief without evidence, it is disbelief due to the lack of evidence. An embarrassingly basic strawman argument.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Zikes 13y ago
See also: the strict unbelievers of the invisible, ethereal, and completely silent unicorn I keep in my garage.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- onion2k 13y ago
  I let that out months ago. I'm surprised you didn't notice.
  - Zikes 13y ago
    I don't believe you!
Millennium 13y ago
The concept of the burden of proof is a legal concept, not a scientific one. Science only cares about what can or cannot be falsified, without making any sort of preliminary value judgments like "extraordinary claims."
- maaarghk 13y ago
  Claims of any nature, then. If I release a paper saying I have any kind of theory then the scientific method requires that I (or someone else who is sympathetic to my claim) provide a valid theoretical or experimental proof that my theory is valid. If I do not fulfil that expectation then it is fair to decide that my belief was not based on any proper reason, and you can choose to think it is nonsense as you wish. You do not need to waste your time proving that it is nonsense.
bradleysmith 13y ago
I think the Sagan quote replies most adequately: Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed". I think the point of the article isn't that atheism is unscientific; confident, undoubted atheism is unscientific. absolutely certain atheism is unscientific. atheism is not a fact, it is a belief. The assumption that there is no god is quite similar to the assumption that there is one.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
This argument is based on a logic error. If a miracle implies God exists, it does not follow that the lack of a miracle implies that God does not exist. (The proper converse of logical implication is the nonexistence of God implies the lack of a miracle.) So a careful scientists concludes merely that he has no basis for an opinion about the existence of God. P.S. I believe in God because the neutrino helicity problem is a miracle. :-)
MetaCosm 13y ago
Absolute drivel. It is a useless frame of reference in which one would have to sit on the fence on every mythical creature ever mentioned. "possibilianism" would cover leprechauns equally as well as god. It would cover santa right along with god. Unicorns as well, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. It is beyond useless. EDIT: Author also thinks "faith" should be taught in public schools. http://biologos.org/blog/science-religion-can-coexist-in-school http://biologos.org/blog/science-religion-can-coexist-in-sch...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Zikes 13y ago

See also: the strict unbelievers of the invisible, ethereal, and completely silent unicorn I keep in my garage.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
onion2k 13y ago
I let that out months ago. I'm surprised you didn't notice.
- Zikes 13y ago
  I don't believe you!

Millennium 13y ago

The concept of the burden of proof is a legal concept, not a scientific one. Science only cares about what can or cannot be falsified, without making any sort of preliminary value judgments like "extraordinary claims."

maaarghk 13y ago
Claims of any nature, then. If I release a paper saying I have any kind of theory then the scientific method requires that I (or someone else who is sympathetic to my claim) provide a valid theoretical or experimental proof that my theory is valid. If I do not fulfil that expectation then it is fair to decide that my belief was not based on any proper reason, and you can choose to think it is nonsense as you wish. You do not need to waste your time proving that it is nonsense.

bradleysmith 13y ago

I think the Sagan quote replies most adequately: Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed". I think the point of the article isn't that atheism is unscientific; confident, undoubted atheism is unscientific. absolutely certain atheism is unscientific. atheism is not a fact, it is a belief. The assumption that there is no god is quite similar to the assumption that there is one.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

This argument is based on a logic error. If a miracle implies God exists, it does not follow that the lack of a miracle implies that God does not exist. (The proper converse of logical implication is the nonexistence of God implies the lack of a miracle.) So a careful scientists concludes merely that he has no basis for an opinion about the existence of God. P.S. I believe in God because the neutrino helicity problem is a miracle. :-)

MetaCosm 13y ago

Absolute drivel. It is a useless frame of reference in which one would have to sit on the fence on every mythical creature ever mentioned. "possibilianism" would cover leprechauns equally as well as god. It would cover santa right along with god. Unicorns as well, the flying spaghetti monster, etc. It is beyond useless. EDIT: Author also thinks "faith" should be taught in public schools. http://biologos.org/blog/science-religion-can-coexist-in-school http://biologos.org/blog/science-religion-can-coexist-in-sch...