Monday, June 19, 2023
J. B. S. Haldane's argument for atheism
“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.”
― Faith And Fact
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
So because God doesn't interfere with scientific experiments, he doesn't exist?
Rather, scientific experiments already presuppose regularity and the intelligibility of the world. Scientists make bad philosophers since they don't ponder their basic assumptions.
It seems silly to me, also.
God is not in evidence.
Pixies are not in evidence.
Flying monkeys are not in evidence.
The Lord of the Rings is not in evidence.
There are, in principle, an unbounded number of speculations one can dream up. Any particular god is just one of such unevidenced speculations.
You can believe in magical pixies if you wish.
Nobody can prove the universal negative, that the magical pixies you invented absolutely do not exist.
If you go around telling people you believe that magical pixies created the universe and when you die magical pixies will come to carry you off to a cotton candy wonderland of eternal joy you will be considered alternatively insane, or on LSD, or a blithering idiot, or just a liar.
Another word for magical pixies is god. Which are you, insane, on LSD, a blithering idiot, or just a liar?
There is nothing in that post that warrants a serious response. Also, it has nothing to do with the argument presented from Haldane.
Kevin,
You just don't get the relevance.
"So because God doesn't interfere with scientific experiments, he doesn't exist?"
Yes.
Pixies don't interfere with scientific experiments, so pixies do not exist.
Flying monkeys don't interfere with scientific experiments, so flying monkeys do not exist.
The Lord of the Rings doesn't interfere with scientific experiments, so such nonsense does not exist.
You can make up all the speculations you feel like, god, pixies, magical monkeys and on and on and on. None of them are detectable in any scientific experiment so the reasonable conclusion is that they do not exist.
Obviously, nobody can prove the universal negative. You can always concoct your favorite fanciful speculation such that these supposed magical beings are invisible, silent, distant, or otherwise undetectable.
Is that how you live your life? Making up fanciful invisible beings that cannot be detected? Does it somehow give you comfort that you could be correct since others cannot strictly disprove your particular story about an invisible ghost?
You just don't get the relevance.
I don't get it because it doesn't exist for me to get.
Pixies don't interfere with scientific experiments, so pixies do not exist.
I don't interfere with them either. Guess I don't exist.
The Lord of the Rings doesn't interfere with scientific experiments, so such nonsense does not exist.
First time I've ever heard someone refer to LotR as nonsense.
None of them are detectable in any scientific experiment so the reasonable conclusion is that they do not exist.
Science by definition is incapable of detecting God, so its inability to do so is hardly a challenge. I recommend reading the many valid criticisms of the disastrous New Atheist movement by other atheists, and maybe you can come to the point where you reject that dogmatic nonsense, too.
And unlike LotR, most people familiar with it think New Atheism was complete nonsense, eclipsed only by Atheism Plus. Can't wait to see what movement comes out next that makes PZ Myers look sane in comparison.
Is that how you live your life? Making up fanciful invisible beings that cannot be detected?
Nope. I can happily announce to you that I have not made up a single fanciful invisible being.
Does it somehow give you comfort that you could be correct since others cannot strictly disprove your particular story about an invisible ghost?
"Invisible ghost" is at best a childish caricature of what I believe, which is yet another unfortunate hallmark of New Atheism and why they aren't worthy of serious consideration.
I'm not aware of any beliefs I hold that comfort me because others can't disprove them, any more than I get concerned that an atheist disagrees with me. That's not as impressive a sign as you seem to think.
Kevin,
--Pixies don't interfere with scientific experiments, so pixies do not exist.
"I don't interfere with them either. Guess I don't exist."
But you do interfere, at least in principle, and that interference is observable and understandable.
If pixies were to interfere it would be some strange disturbance that has no observable cause.
Everything goes along just fine in the experiment until you come along and smash the equipment, but then we can see a reason for the disturbance of the experiment.
If there were pixies interfering with things stuff could get smashed up spontaneously, but we don't observe such things, so we have no call to speculate that god or pixies or any such fanciful invisible beings exist.
"Science by definition is incapable of detecting God,"
False.
Science certainly should be able to detect god if god really exists. Why not? God supposedly interacts with the cosmos very strongly. Those interactions should be observable.
You merely define your fantasy being as an invisible undetectable being, how convenient, but absurd.
"I recommend reading the many valid criticisms of the disastrous New Atheist movement by other atheists"
I have read criticisms, but not valid ones.
"Nope. I can happily announce to you that I have not made up a single fanciful invisible being"
Ok, so you do not believe in god or the human soul or any such fanciful invisible being, good to know.
""Invisible ghost" is at best a childish caricature of what I believe, "
If you believe in god or angels or the devil or the human soul then "invisible ghost" is an accurate caricature of your childish belief.
If there were pixies interfering with things stuff could get smashed up spontaneously, but we don't observe such things, so we have no call to speculate that god or pixies or any such fanciful invisible beings exist.
That might be valid if pixies or God were mindless forces that behaved in predictable patterns, one of which was to interfere in scientific processes.
When the proposed entity has agency, that argument becomes utterly invalid.
False
Nope, quite true. Science can't detect God, in principle. Every argument against this is dependent on God being a mindless predictable force made of a substance detectable by our instruments, or if not mindless then perfectly willing to bow to the whims of New Atheist "thinkers" to prove his existence to them. The idea is laughable to a Christian, but doctrine to the self-inflated ego of the New Atheist.
But hey, if you're right then we'll never know, so I can live with that. No reason to think you are, so win-win for me I suppose.
I have read criticisms, but not valid ones.
So you read the criticisms New Atheists shared that were weak enough for them to refute? New Atheism is a joke, a fact recognized by everyone familiar with the subject except the New Atheists themselves. Intelligent and mature atheists distance themselves from it out of embarrassment or horror, Christians mock it for its childishness, and even a lot of New Atheists hate the movement. History will regard the movement as blending old atheist arguments with rudeness, simplistic reasoning, and an evangelical zeal. Probably racist and sexist, too, depending on who writes the history book.
Ok, so you do not believe in god or the human soul or any such fanciful invisible being, good to know.
Even in the unlikely event God doesn't exist, I didn't make him up.
If you believe in god or angels or the devil or the human soul then "invisible ghost" is an accurate caricature of your childish belief.
A perfect example of New Atheist "thinking", per my description above. No substance whatsoever.
If you want to leave the intellectual dark ages, you need to leave New Atheism behind. You'll be glad you did.
Kevin,
"Nope, quite true. Science can't detect God, in principle."
Of course science can detect god, the soul, or anything else that supposedly interacts with our observable material world.
If god and the soul are undetectable in principle then they can have no effect on us or the rest of the cosmos.
Post a Comment