And, slamma, if you look at this thread, I have stated carefully more than once that I know biologists are not leaving the evolution fold. When I said "evolution is hurting", I mean hurting for explanations. The only reasonable attempt imo is punctuated equilibria. Because Gould was intellectually honest about NewDarwinism, I am willing to listen to what he had to say...
I agree. Now what happens when you apply those statements to belief in religion? Without proof religion becomes just a theory; a belief system for those who embrace it; a creed and dogma for those who preach it; and fundamentalism when thought to be superior to other theories and used to condemn them. I couldn't have put it any better myself. The question is, why do you believe it? At least you have the honesty of accepting that it is just a theory without proof. So, seeing as you hold it as a belief, I'd be interested to see what your proof is.
It is rather that like most people you have a SIMPLISTIC idea about Science as said one of the greatest scientist of all times henri Poincarré in his renowned writings you are a "superficial observer" : Henri Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis "To the <font color=red>superficial observer</font> scientific truth is unassailable, the logic of science is infallible; and if scientific men sometimes make mistakes, it is because they have not understood the rules of the game. Mathematical truths are derived from a few self-evident propositions, by a chain of flawless reasonings; they are imposed not only on us, but on Nature itself. By them the Creator is fettered, as it were, and His choice is limited to a relatively small number of solutions. A few experiments, therefore, will be sufficient to enable us to determine what choice He has made. From each experiment a number of consequences will follow by a series of mathematical deductions, and in this way each of them will reveal to us a corner of the universe. <font color=red>This, to the minds of most people, and to students who are getting their first ideas of physics, is the origin of certainty in science</font>. This is what they take to be the rôle of experiment and mathematics. And thus, too, it was understood a hundred years ago by many men of science who dreamed of constructing the world with the aid of the smallest possible amount of material borrowed from experiment. But upon more mature reflection the position held by hypothesis was seen; it was recognised that it is as necessary to the experimenter as it is to the mathematician. And then the doubt arose if all these constructions are built on solid foundations. The conclusion was drawn that a breath would bring them to the ground. This sceptical attitude does not escape the charge of superficiality. <font color=red>To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection</font>."
You obviously havent the FAINTEST clue what my scientific beliefs are, and to label them SIMPLISTIC with one broad stroke implies you think you are a mind reader, or simply completely ignorant of my belief system. Furthermore... this was nothing but an ad hominem attack on me and totally dodged my initial assertion. Bravo. peace axeman
Science is based around the idea that you do not strongly believe theories about reality unless they are supported by evidence, especially if there are alternative explanations that are supported by better evidence. Atheism is the claim that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of God for it to be rational to have strong belief in god's existence. Your claim that science does not support atheism is therefore a claim that there is *sufficient* evidence for the existence of God for it to meet the usual standards demanded by science. Please list the evidence that you think is sufficient for there to be scientific proof that god exists. P.S. you completely mischaracterise Axeman's position without any supporting evidence. No rational personal thinks science is anything other than a set of hypotheses which have some utilitarian usefulness in describing reality. Certainly no one thinks science is *true*, in the sense of being completely accurate.
I like that quote! Of course, I think I interpret it a little differently. But it's an excellent starting point...
Excellent points. The universe most like will not conform to old school scientific reductionism. That leaves us with many interesting questions...
You said : "Science is a process incapable of possessing a belief in of itself" If you read about the NECESSITY OF HYPOTHESIS IN SCIENCE, it means that SCIENCE ALSO IS BASED OR REQUIRES SOME BELIEF but not ARBITRARY LIKE RELIGION BECAUSE UNLIKE RELIGION IT WILL TRY TO PROVE OR DISPROVE. It doesn't mean that it has achieved such goal at every instant so Science itself has to live in a transient state of belief or hypothesis until this hypothesis is proved or disproved and sometimes only temporarily. "and is therefore atheistic by definition." No since as I have showned by quoting for example Einstein and Hawkins that it is AGNOSCTISM rather than ATHEISM that is the position of Science.
Learn to read. I said: "SCIENCE IS A PROCESS". A process is NOT capable of possessing a belief. A *SCIENTIST*, as in a HUMAN *can* posses a belief. If I handed you the PROCESS for cooking chocolate chip cookies, would you claim the PROCESS can possess a belief for something? Absurd. I am well aware of the necessity for hypothesis in science. Your preaching to the choir. Now I ask you... do scientists who apply the scientific method to the question of god, in general, BELIEVE in god???? Yes or No. We already know the National Academy of Scientists answer 93% NO for this question. If you answer no, then you agree they are being atheistic. People who follow the scientific method are atheistic by definition UNTIL they prove the existence of god, which has never happened. peace axeman
The main problem with this approach is that one could use it equally to believe in Little Green Men, giant sentient chocolate cakes orbiting Alpha Centurai, or other wild claims. I would question why a faith-based approach is superior to a sceptical one, given that the former seems to have no way of screening out beliefs in Little Green Men and other such outlandish claims. Why have faith in God, and not in lucky charms or astrology? Scepticism is not adopted as a default position just for the sake of it. I personally am sceptical because I have observed many cases of humans having faith that is utterly misguided and wrong. Faith has a very poor track record in finding out what is true and what is false. Rather, it seems in most cases to be a convenient way for people to rationalise their emotional and psychological needs and desires (e.g. for a sense of meaning in their life, or a hope that justice will be achieved, or that good will triumph over evil, or that they will find happiness etc). Indeed, the *only* faith-based opinions which survive are those that are, for various reasons, not subject to refutation. For example, extremely broad-based and vague predictions of astrologers cannot be refuted, because of their catch-all nature; metaphysicians and moralists can pontificate to their hearts content, safe in the knowledge that their views are completely unfalsifiable. Whereas an astrologer who made precise predictions would be refuted immediately; a Platonist who said "I can scientifically prove that classical music is superior to gangsta rap" would be laughed out of court. In a similar way, more simplistic religions such as cargo cults or animism have been refuted because they can be. The only surviving religions amongst intelligent people are ones that are unfalsifiable. It is therefore my contention that the reason why people still believe in these unfalsifiable beliefs is most likely to be the result of their unfalsifiability. The faith based approach, if judged on the track record of all faith-based approaches, has been a dismal failure in achieving knowledge that presents a reasonably accurate picture of the world. Instead it has given us countless beliefs that appeal to certain emotional and psychological needs present in many human beings, but which turn out to be completely false (e.g. alchemy, cargo cults, witch trials, astrology, numerology etc). I therefore, based on the clear and undisputable evidence of faith's poor track record, reject it as a system of attaining knowledge of any accuracy or usefulness in describing the world. In contrast, sceptical approaches have proven to be very good at discovering truths - often truths that were extremely counter-intuitive and almost impossible to find via other methods. Science is a good example. Logical reasoning is another, as is empiricism. They have often had false beliefs, but because of the relentless testing and need for proof, they have gotten rid of those false beliefs faster than any other system of knowledge. I therefore conclude that, if attaining accurate knowledge about reality is your goal, then you should look at the track records of faith-based systems versus sceptical systems based on logical reasoning and empirical proof. Any examination of their track records will show scepticism to be far superior. It is therefore questionable at best, and irrational at worst, to formulate one's beliefs about the world using faith to the exclusion of scepticism.