My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.
-- J.B.S. Haldane
This is an argument that people who practice or accept science ought to be atheists, and it has been endorsed recently by Lawrence Krauss. But what is the argument exactly? Here numbered premises might be nice.
Maybe this:
1. In setting up experiments in science, scientists set aside the possibility of divine interference changing the result of the experiment.
2. To be consistent, therefore, someone who practices science ought also to discount the possibility of divine interference in all areas of life.
3. To discount the possibility of divine activity in the world in all areas of life is to be, at least in practice if not in theory, an atheist.
4. Therefore consistent thinking on the part of scientists leads to atheism.
But I fail to see why I should believe 2. If I ask a scientist about whether or not a hundred dollar bill will remain in my drawer if I leave it there, the scientists might answer "yes." By this I take it he would mean that the bill did not have properties that will cause it to disintegrate there, or spontaneously combust. . But he doesn't know whether a burglar might get into the drawer. In other words, the scientist is going to tell me what will happen to the bill left to itself. It is mapping the world apart from interference, telling you what will happen all things being equal. But it is a further question as to whether all things are equal.
214 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 214 of 214"Of all the miracles attributed to the Christian God, why not an amputee. Just one."
Luke 22:49-51.
I-pretend-to-be-rational: "I have a question for the theists here. What would convince you they(sic) your [G]od doesn't exist?"
B.Prokop: "Show me the verifiable body of an unresurrected Jesus, and I'll drop Christianity like a hot potato. No literal, physical, historical Resurrection - no Christianity [(*)]. And none of this "spiritual, allegorical interpretation" crap. Show me the body - it's game over."
I-pretend-to-be-rational: "[whine! whinge! No fair! That's too hard!]"
Let's look at this from a different perspective --
DarwinDenier: "I have a question for the Darwinists here. What would convince you that 'modern evolutionary theory' is false?"
DarwinDefender: "The discovery of a pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil."
(Knowledgable) DarwinDenier: "You dishonest son of a bitch!"
Why is the knowledgable DarwinDenier correct to call the DarwinDefender a "dishonest son of a bitch"? Because, by definition, no stratum containing a rabbit fossil is a pre-Cambrian strata. Darwinists "date" strata by the fossils they contain ... and they "date" fossils by the stratum in which they are found. It's an exercise in circular "definitions" -- the DarwinDefender's favorite falsification criterion for *his* religious/metaphysical beliefs is no falsification criterion at all. Offering it as a potential falsifier for Darwinism is dishonest, for in principle -- due to the definitional nature of 'pre-Cambrian' -- it is logically impossible.
In contrast, the potential falsifier for Christianity, which our own Sacred Writings acknowledge would falsify our religious beliefs, is in principle possible. Sure, it would be difficult for the anti-Christian to falsify Christianity, but it is not logically impossible.
Furthermore, the anti-Christian who thinks he can falsify Christianity logically has more than one way to "produce the body". For instance, logically prove that it is logically impossible (and thus, utterly impossible) for a dead human being to return to life. For instance, logically prove that there is no Creator-God, in the forst place -- thus falsifying not only Christianity (*), but also Judaism, and Islam.
(*) Falsifying Christianity by means of proving that Christ never rose from the dead does not falsify the truth that God is, it falsifies one specific understanding of God. If Christianity were falsified, we "theists" don't have to become atheists/God-deniers.
On the other hand, falsifying the proposition that "There is no God" -- and this has been done -- leaves the 'atheist', the 'agnostic' (which is to say, the dishonest atheist), the God-denier noplace to stand.
The proposition that "There is no God" is false; it has been *shown* to be false; and *you* are the undeniable evidence that it is false. No man has any excuse for asserting the falsehood that there is no God.
God-deniers, whether 'atheist' (who assert that "There is no God") or 'agnostic' (who assert that "It is unknowable whether there is a God"), have no place at the table of rational discourse concerning God. They are irrational on the matter, they have have *chosen* to be irrational on the matter. It is irrational -- and immoral -- for the rest of us to keep pretending that they are rational.
"[whine! whinge! No fair! That's too hard!]"
Notice that he said "verifiable". I agree that it's logically possible. It also happens to be physically impossible. If you know of any way to verify such a thing, please enlighten me. What Bob demands as evidence can't be provided by any known means.
"Because, by definition, no stratum containing a rabbit fossil is a pre-Cambrian strata."
You are ignorant of how geologic strata are dated. Do a little reading before spouting your scientific ignorance.
"... falsifying the proposition that "There is no God" -- and this has been done ..."
So you say. You are satisfied by a lack of evidence and logic built upon unsubstantiated premises. That's what you call being rational. I need more than that.
Ilion,
Your "you are the proof that God is" argument is fallacious because it assumes a false dichotomy. It assumes that the only logically possible alternative to theism is materialism, which is demonstrably false. Prior to about 1950, very few atheists were materialists: most of them were either emergent dualists, neutral monists, or idealists. Even substance dualism is logically compatible with the absence of God: perhaps souls have always existed and have only just recently become "drawn in" by bodies. Whether the combination of atheism and non-materialism is likely to be true is a different question: the falsity of materialism certainly provides at least some inductive support for theism. But you cannot jump from the falsity of materialism to the truth of theism: such an inference is patently invalid and rests on a notoriously common example of black-and-white thinking.
Now, I happen to think that theism is likely to be true: while I am still agnostic, consideration of the cosmological argument from contingency has convinced me that the case for theism is at least incredibly strong. But people like you, who go around spouting that theism is the only logical alternative to materialism, are the reason why materialism is so prevalent among contemporary atheists: they falsely believe that entertaining the possibility of something beyond the material automatically opens the door to Christian theism, and as a result hold to materialism simply because they already believe that Christian theism is false.
"Notice that he said "verifiable". I agree that it's logically possible. It also happens to be physically impossible."
Now, Skep. Why should/would I be expected to abandon Christianity on evidence that could not be verified? You yourself are demanding verifiable evidence for the supernatural before you give up on your atheism. Why are you demanding that I be held to a different standard?
Now as to verifiability of the Resurrection, I regard that as having been done. The evidence more than satisfies me, and I believe that a compelling case can be made for it that ought to satisfy anyone who doesn't have a closed mind and hasn't prejudged the outcome.
"simply because they already believe that Christian theism is false"
Ing,
Interesting side note here (well, interesting to me, at any rate). Were I tomorrow to somehow be convinced of the falsity of Christianity, I doubt that I would remain a theist. Not that I would become an atheist, but rather I would likely fall into that huge mass of people who frankly don't give a damn about the question. To be perfectly honest, the question "Is there or is there not a God?" would be completely irrelevant to my life in the absence of Jesus. I cannot be more serious here. He is why I care about these questions at all. From my point of view, "no Resurrection" may not mean "no God", but it would most certainly mean "Who cares?"
"Why should/would I be expected to abandon Christianity on evidence that could not be verified?"
I certainly wouldn't expect you to abandon your belief on that basis. On the other hand, it is telling that that is the one and only reason given that would constitute sufficient cause for you. In other words, there is nothing that would convince you.
On the other hand, when it comes to the resurrection...
"The evidence more than satisfies me, and I believe that a compelling case can be made for it that ought to satisfy anyone who doesn't have a closed mind"
Well, well. Here's where you are being much less than consistent. The evidence for the resurrection is flimsy at best, and only someone whose mind is already made up would think it is convincing. Ask yourself, if this evidence was presented in a court trial, would it pass muster? The answer is absolutely not. It is hearsay. It doesn't constitute valid evidence. If you were a lawyer making your case on this basis, you would be laughed out of court.
In other words, there is nothing that would convince you.
No. What could convince him is exactly what he said - producing the dead body of Christ. If Christ is not resurrected, Christianity is false.
In principle, it's possible the evidence could be found. Maybe Christ's grave, and some documentation dated from the relevant era stating what happened ("Jesus was crucified, we took him off the cross, here are his bones.") In principle, it's entirely possible.
Granted, if Christ was resurrected, the odds of this turning up are nil. Maybe you'll say 'Christ could have been resurrected and still this didn't happen or we'd never find it'. Sure, but there's always exceptions to evidence and explanations.
Face it, Skep: Bob (and myself, though I gave more examples) gave exactly what you wanted. The problem here is that you want something disproved *already*, because the goal here isn't being reasonable, it's getting people to believe what you want them to.
The evidence for the resurrection is flimsy at best, and only someone whose mind is already made up would think it is convincing. Ask yourself, if this evidence was presented in a court trial, would it pass muster? The answer is absolutely not.
All assertions from someone who, alongside Linton, has been demonstrated in the past to hardly have a grasp on what the evidence is, not to mention how to reasonably judge it. You're having reasoning problems *in this thread, about far easier topics*. But we should trust your biased evaluation of a religion you hate and fear?
Not only that, but 'presented in a court trial'? You mean, in a situation where the relevant evidence is not always or even largely 'strict empirical demonstration', but testimonial, dealing with witnesses? A fair and balanced jury or judge would, given the state of the evidence, be forced to find a conclusion that would have you protesting in the streets and rioting.
Isn't it odd that I -- recall: I'm the "fundie" around here -- had never considered, and never would have considered, that demon possession (or demon oppression, which would be far likely to be the case than outright possession) might be an explanation for what ails the Mad Dingo?
Isn't even more odd that I, who have no nuance or subtlety of thought - as our very own Nuancey-boy, Dan Gillson, so kindly informed us a couple of weeks ago -- have nonetheless accounted for a possible specific explanation that would never have occurred to me?
*If* demon oppression (or possession) is the specific explanation for why Papalinton does what he does, then it is so as a complex blend of all three of the general explanations I detailed --
No, what's odd is that try to elicit pity and/or respect from other commentators by making such a show of what you suffer around here: "I'm the fundie" … "I, who have no nuance or subtlety of thought" … "You people start tossing around 'liar' and 'intellectually dishonest' … because you get frustrated [with me] … " Get over yourself.
^ *yawn*
Our Nuancey-boy, the troll -- who boasts of his trollishness, in writing (*), on this blog and on mine -- pleads: "Pay attention to me! Pay attention ot me!"
(*) What? Did he think it wasn't obvious?
Be flattered, Ilíon: I'm your troll, and only your troll. Otherwise, I get along quite nicely with everyone else on this blog. Do you?
"... because the goal here isn't being reasonable, it's getting people to believe what you want them to."
How dense can you be?
The goal was to show that you are hypocritical when you complain that atheists won't accept any evidence for the existence of god. I give you something that I would accept, and you say "but that's not reasonable - that's something that would never happen, or if it did, you'd find a way to explain it away". And what evidence would convince you that gos doesn't exist? Nothing that could ever be verified. So you and Bob have proven my point. I don't give a hoot what you choose to believe, by the way.
Post a Comment