Why Aren’t Less Science Students Atheist?
Posted in Atheism, Quickies, Religion, Science, Skepticism, Thinking Critically on | 2 minutes | 15 Comments →
After all, the general trend of science has been to reveal that things are exponentially bigger, infinitesimally smaller and vastly more complex than what was once beyond our weirdest and wildest dreams, right? I mean come on, beer galaxies? Really? Point is, there's always been far more to reality than we imagine. Instead of producing insurmountable discontinuities, the horizons of human knowledge and objective reality tend to expand astronomically. We used to think this world was all there was. We were wrong. We used to think this solar system was all there was. We were wrong. Some of us think that this universe and this existence are all there is. Especially in light of emerging evidence combined with past tradition, isn't there a reasonable chance that they, too, are wrong?
Of course the following is not infinitely extensible, but the truth is, often when we try to set a limit on what Nature can do or has done, it is us who ends up looking the fools.
When we die, one of at least two things is going to happen: We're either going to re-awake in another of who-knows-how-many possible places, or our consciousness is simply going to cease to exist. Now, of course there's no scientific proof either way; I'm not talking about proof, I'm not talking about evidence, and I'm not even talking in the context of making a specific truth-claim for anything. Rather, I'm asking a question that I think skeptics and atheists cannot honestly answer in the negative: Given the countless times scientists have tried to set limits on reality and they've been wrong, is this trend not sufficient preliminary justification for the idea that perhaps this universe, life and perhaps death itself are not discontinuities, that perhaps, as our Earthist views of life eventually crumbled, that perhaps one day our Universist and Materialist views of life will also crumble, too?
Lifeguard
says...Aloha.
You wrote:
“Given the countless times scientists have tried to set limits on reality and they’ve been wrong, is this trend not sufficient preliminary justification for the idea that perhaps this universe, life and perhaps death itself are not discontinuities, that perhaps, as our Earthist views of life eventually crumbled, that perhaps one day our Universist and Materialist views of life will also crumble, too?”
Yes. In fact, I might even say absolutely, but…
First, there’s another side to that coin. Given the countless times that supernatural explanations for observed phenonomenon have been proven wrong and given way to naturalist explanations, isn’t there a trend towards a sufficient preliminary justification for the idea that supernatural explanations and views of life and it’s meaning will continue to crumble as well?
Second, Earthist and Universalist views are not exclusively Materialist. Plenty of religions claimed at one time of another that the earth was the center of the universe. In fact, you’re begging the question why some religious traditions continued to claim as much even after the scientific verdict was in. There came a time when, given our observations, we could not help but conclude that the earth was flat and, in fact, the center of the universe. That started to change, however, when someone made more sophisticated obervations and calculations.
We may find that the universe isn’t the center of… well, “the Universe,” I guess… there may even be a whole new physics out there beyond what we know, but that would still involve a new PHYSICS– a new set of laws governing how whatever else is out there acts, right?
The fact that science has been proven wrong about certain assumptions based on the best available observations at the time means it’s very likely that science may be proven wrong about scientific opinions and theories that are widely held today. That’s the beauty of it. But I think for the most part, science and the preference for materialist explanations of the world have gotten it right a lot more often than religious supernatural explanations have. That’s probably a far more pronounced trend than the one you’re describing.
Agnosticism anyone?
Lifeguard
says...To be (mercifully) more succinct than my last comment:
Scientific theories have often been proven wrong throughout history, but this has happened almost exclusively at the hands of other scientists using the scientific method based on materialist or naturalist explanations. How often has a supernatural or religious insight exposed the error in a scientific claim?
cl
says...The first time I heard these arguments they were initially worrisome. One’s reaction is to defend “supernaturalism” when there is no need. What I’m saying is this: It’s true that “natural” explanations have replaced “supernatural” ones for most any phenomena. For example, people thought rain gods brought rain. Then they learned about clouds. Problem is, if we’re being honest, we must admit something – that rain occurs when moist clouds burst in no way dethrones or disproves the idea that rain gods might have a say in the weather. That self-perpetuating processes sustain biological life in no way dethrones or disproves the idea of a supernatural creation event. So these arguments are really arguments of false opposites. Knowing what happens materially during a certain phenomena does not mean that any or all of its “supernatural” causalities have been proven false. That earlier people attributed supernatural cause to things we today explain with science shows only their misunderstanding of supernaturalism’s jurisdiction, and not any inherent error or incongruity on behalf of supernaturalism or its respective domain.
Secondly, shouldn’t we expect that “natural” explanations for phenomena will always replace “supernatural” ones? Science doesn’t look for “supernatural” solutions. Science presupposes methodological naturalism, hence it will never discover a “supernatural” solution to a natural problem.
Certainly. But my point doesn’t change, for we still have a group of people thinking small and insisting that “this is all there is”. People do this regardless of what they believe, and far more often than not, whoever does this is wrong.
So that’s why I side with Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Lifeguard
says...You wrote:
“Knowing what happens materially during a certain phenomena does not mean that any or all of its ‘supernatural’ causalities have been proven false. That earlier people attributed supernatural cause to things we today explain with science shows only their misunderstanding of supernaturalism’s jurisdiction, and not any inherent error or incongruity on behalf of supernaturalism or its respective domain.”
Exactly.
So let me refine my point:
Given the countless times that humanity has had to revise its understanding of supernaturalism’s jurisdiction by virtue of the increasing jurisdiction of naturalism, isn’t there a trend towards a sufficient preliminary justification for the idea that supernaturalism’s jursidiction will continue to diminish while naturalism’s will continue to expand?
First, I’ll concede that there is a trend towards sufficient preliminary justification for Hamlet’s hypothesis that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horation, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (although– surprise, surprise– I won’t concede that whatever else we find out there is the Judeo-Christian God). All we’re talking about here is a “TREND towards a sufficient PRELIMINARY justification” for the idea.
But I think it is beyond fair to state that there is just as much (I would argue even stronger) reason to find that there is a trend towards sufficient preliminary justification for the idea that supernaturalism’s jurisdiction will continue to diminish to the gain of naturalism or materialism. I don’t see how you can argue that such a trend does NOT exist– at least enough of a trend to preliminarily justify the proposition– although I’d grant you the qualification that even that doesn’t necessarily constitute an “inherent error or incongruity on behalf of supernaturalism or its respective domain”
Second, you could argue that supernaturalism’s jurisdiction has been refined or re-defined rather than “diminished” by the growing jurisdiction of naturalism. But doesn’t that sound close to a “God of the Gaps” argument? Even if, as you maintain, we use such arguments on the atheist side too? Doesn’t that at least strike you as an intellectual hazard here?
To be fair, (although I hope I haven’t been unfair to this point), I think you’re correct about the “false opposites” problem, and I think that problem arises here because the word “supernaturalism” does double duty as the antonym of both “naturalism” and “materialism,” two words that have slightly different shades of meaning.
Lastly, I hadn’t seen it before cruising around your blog, but I LOVE that Feedback section… had me rolling!
cl
says...Glad we can see eye-to-eye on the Hamlet thing. I can see your points, and coincidentally had just finished writing this: “Whatever potential negative befalls belief conversely befalls skepticism.”
You said,
Yes, and part of the reason I don’t think logic is partial to either belief or doubt. To be honest, I’ve always objected to the division of things into categories of “supernatural” and “natural” for these very reasons. You hit on this at the end of your last comment. Whatever is, is “natural.” If we have souls and/or spirits, for example, then that is the natural state of a human being. “Supernatural” fails intellectually and linguistically because it merely serves as a euphemism for ignorance.
So when you ask this question, my answer is yes, “supernaturalism” will continue to diminish. Say we were able to prove the soul, then the soul would just become natural. Then one might say, “See, supernaturalism is bunk and science is closing the gaps. Such is really a false victory for naturalism. There is no “natural” or “supernatural” but only what is. These words are inextricably intertwined with our own knowledge and ignorance. So it’s not that “naturalism” proves that the things “supernaturalism” entails are false; that’s not what science is proving. Science is proving that all things seem to rest upon a framework of order. We’re just coming to understand things in a deeper and more correct framework, whereas before, lack of explanation led to over-reliance on spiritual explanation. People thousands of years ago might view cars as gods.
Such a trend DOES exist. Supernaturalism has been pushed back as an explanation in many areas, but such does not entail that it has been disproven in any or all cases. Take demonic oppression and pschizophrenia for example. Science mistakenly thinks that because certain neurons are misfiring predictably, that such dethrones the possibility that demonic or psychic interference might play a role in any or all cases. Such is untrue, a false dichotomy.
Well that’s good. I’ve got some other good ones I’m trying to find. I like PhillyChief’s the best – pick his ears with a carrot? Hilarious!
www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnXLptx9CDYOC1gd-nJfVYzug6ye98Ov2c
says...Well most of this I’d file in the “picking your ears with a carrot” category. First, you don’t even touch the subject of your title. I was expecting some survey results of scientists’ religious views.
I disagree. I think the imagineering of man at least rivals many actual explanations for reality in complexity.
Apples and oranges, first of all, with that “past tradition” bit. Second, what “emerging evidence”? For the existence of something beyond our universe and/or beyond our existence? And what would that be?
Would this include arguments that invoke “there are limits to our five senses” or “a brain can’t produce a mind”?
Clever phrasing. I don’t see how scientists have “tried to set limits”. I see how they’ve been incorrect by making due with whatever knowledge they had at their disposal, and whatever means they had to acquire knowledge at their disposal. As was already stated, such mistakes were corrected thanks to new knowledge and new tools, thus further validating the scientific method and naturalism.
If a natural solution successfully explains a natural problem, then what’s the point of searching for yet another kind of solution or holding on to an old, useless, supernatural one? Once discovering how thunder works, what’s the point of hanging on to explaining it as god bowling in heaven?
And if souls are discovered to be real, then so be it. Same for pixies, unicorns and gods. Until then, they’ll be exiled to the realm of ignorance (ie – the realm of ignorance).
Or the shenanigans of brain gremlins. The point, as always, is warranted explanations. There’s simply nothing to warrant demon or gremlin shenanigans.
PhillyChief
says...That’s very weird. That post was from me. Must have been the shenanigans of the gremlins of the inter-tubes. Damn them!
cl
says...No worries my friend. I think between the two of us there’s enough skepticism to keep the gremlins out. I’m just glad to see you around and I’m not even being sarcastic yet. Although everyone needs some confirmation once in a while, it’s not that fun or challenging talking to people you agree with.
There’s nothing wrong with you expecting that, but I did touch the subject of my title, just not the way you expected me to. I pondered at introductory length on why so many science lovers seem to have a closed-minded view of reality. But you’re right – although I’m by no means a statistic type of guy – some numbers wouldn’t of hurt, right? So we can agree there.
It’s true that “imagineering” runs deep but perhaps you missed my point? It wasn’t which was the bigger of two categories (imagineered ideas vs. real world explanations), it was the fact that we constantly uncover more facts and newer, more refined truths about the universe. Thus, reality expands for us and will continue to do so as long as humans are alive, and of course presuming reality has no apex or culmination – no Omega Point, as de Chardin called it. Nobody can refute the fact that like time, knowledge proceeds in a linear direction, but unlike time, knowledge is constantly expanding. As a general trend, our perception of reality is constantly growing.
When you say “apples and oranges” I understand what you mean, but again, you don’t seem to address my point. The past tradition is that we have traditionally held false confidence in our estimations of what we know. People used to think earth was all there was, or that nine planets were all there were. Yes, this applies to your comment about five senses and mind without brain. There are people who breach what are considered the “normal” range for sensory perception. And today’s computer science has more than something to say about mind outside a brain.
You don’t see how scientists set limits? Perhaps I shouldn’t have said they “try to” because I think it’s more an indirect effect than a conscious effort. Some said we’d go no smaller than the atom. In innocently presuming such, false limits are imposed. When Miller proposed the wrong gasses for his experiment, false limits were imposed. What I mean is, scientists are just as prone to thinking inside the box as anyone. Then along comes Einstein or whoever and what’dya know? The Hamlet thing, Lifeguard agreed, you can too if only you try: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Until we reach omniscience, such is always true, no?
Such supports my point, not challenges it. I’m not arguing against the validity of the scientific method and naturalism. And, my grandma used to say that “God bowling in heaven” thing. Yes, in science, there’s no point in hanging on to any non-natural explanations or implications for a particular phenomena. The error is to view the entirety of life through the filters of science. The whole world is pink through rose colored
glasses, right? So if we only allow as real what science can verify as real, we limit our options, and science is constantly verifying more and more of what’s real.
And your opinion should be the default position because?
PhillyChief
says...You’re really reaching. Because “some” may be guilty, all are? You never said “some” originally. An oversight?
I don’t know if my mailman is secretly a lizard like from V or some other kind of alien that I’d need Roddy Piper’s glasses to see in his true form, and yes, it’s possible either thing could be true. Of course, what’s there to warrant pursuing either of those possibilities? Am I self limiting by not entertaining either?
Let’s go more real world. It’s possible the Nigerian prince who emailed me today really is who he claims to be and has a fabulous deal for me that could make me rich. I, however, consider trusting this email as unwarranted. Am I self limiting?
A construction worker atop a high rise building considers it possible he could glide down safely to the ground. His foreman forbids him to try. Is he being limited?
cl
says...No, I’m not reaching. Every working scientist believed in exclusively Newtonian concepts of motion for quite some time, no? Such was certainly a false limit, no? Do you feel it was warranted? I don’t. Nor do I feel it was intentional, just the inevitable result of uncovering more facts about the world.
Technically yes, but it would be warranted IMO.
Technically yes, but it would be warranted IMO.
Technically yes, and I feel only in the latter would you be warranted. Do you really think that the Piper / V Alien theory and the idea of God share similar explanatory power, and are thus categorically identical for accurate comparison in an honest intellectual discussion? Do you really believe that?
Tell me how believing in something for which authentic bits of evidence are zero or effectively zero can be fairly compared to something for which myriad bits of cross-cultural circumstantial and anecdotal evidence exist? Sure, there’s no conclusive, repeateable, testable evidence we can show someone to prove God, and same with the Piper / V Alien theory. But picture a dual column with God on the left and the Piper / V Alien theory on the right. The rows contain criteria such as purported sightings, purported inspiration of texts, purported miracles, sightings across cultures, duration of purported sightings, etc. No matter how many legitimate criteria we add, the Piper / V Alien theory is going to have zero or near-zero in just about every single instance, possibly even in all instances. On the other hand, God’s is surely far greater. Does that prove God? No. Does that disprove the Piper / V Alien theory? No, but we are certainly more justified in leaving the NULL position in favor of the idea with the most instances of corroborating evidence, right?
Lifeguard
says...Hey, there, Philly. Long time no see.
I just want to jump in here for a second.
Cl, you wrote:
“Every working scientist believed in exclusively Newtonian concepts of motion for quite some time, no? Such was certainly a false limit, no?”
I feel like you’re equating “limits” or “placing limits” with what was the best available information and/or framework for understanding the universe at the time. Newtonian concepts of motion were simply the parameters for scientific discussions at the time because that was the best science had. Using the word “limits” is a little inaccurate in that regard. The failure to see the error in Newtonian concepts of motion was the result of limited resources, technology, and knowledge– not a limited or impoverished imagination or an inability to conceive of “something more.” Indeed, perhaps someone at the time did conceive of “something more,” but humanity lacked the tools necessary to establish or prove otherwise.
Nonetheless, let’s not forget that Newton blew people’s minds, the same way Darwin blew people’s minds, the same way Einstein blew people’s minds. All three of these individuals shattered the pre-conceived “limits” of what people thought they knew about the world (scientifically or religiously for that matter), and they did so using materialist explanations.
My original point, though, is that it has always been science and empiricism that have consistently expanded our understanding of the world, and, while these discoveries have indeed shattered pre-existing scientific theories, they have bolstered the value of empiricism as an explanatory tool that, rather than “placing limits” on our understanding, has given us the greatest tool yet to break through limited perspectives.
I think that’s where Philly’s Piper/ V Alien thing comes in. Philly can be a tremendous smartass (sorry, old chap), but he does have a point under all that bile– imagination and speculation can explain a lot but doesn’t get us anywhere near where empiricism does.
But where is theism, supernaturalism, or supernaturalism’s jurisdiction in all of this? Where do we have an instance of a scientific theory or a materialistic limit placed on our understanding being shattered by a supernatural insight? I propose that this has never happened and is, in fact, impossible. Not because once we have an explanation for a natural phenomenon it automatically becomes natural as opposed to supernatural, but because religion’s role is to contribute philosophical and psychological insights about the human condition rather than tell us anything literal about the physical world.
Anyway, that’s my last two cents on this post. You kids play nice now.
cl
says...Well, I am. The best available information and/or framework constitutes a limit. That’s what scientists are inadvertently doing when they rest too hard on a laurel – creating or imposing false limits.
Exactly. So the chance increases that one day, conventionally Materialist concepts of life will be seen as old parameters, the best science had at one time.
I see that as splitting hairs though, and there wasn’t necessarily an error in the Newtonian concepts of motion, either. It’s that they were not adequate to describe the entirety of the observable phenomena. Anyways, however you describe it linguistically, no matter the ultimate source or reason for our limitations, a limit is always a limit, right?
I agree with your third paragraph completely. But,
You say science and empiricism have constantly expanded our understanding of the world. That’s true. However, science has also inadvertently placed limits on reality and been proven wrong countless times, especially when it draws a finite line in the sand about anything. You say science has given us great breakthroughs rather than placing limits on our understanding. I say science has given us great breakthroughs along with placing limits on our understanding. The two are not mutually exclusive and it seems unrealistic that we could have one without the other.
I know! I don’t mistake Philly’s hilarious sass for stupidity. I derive a certain pleasure from the idea that one day I might be able to get him to question or at least reasonably defend the points under all his bile. And it’s true that “imagination and speculation can explain a lot but doesn’t get us anywhere near where empiricism does.”
I agree this has never happened, and never will, because science must presume methodological naturalism, and because the two can be false opposites. Hence a “supernatural” idea can never even enter onto the playing field. If we frame the soul as supernatural from the outset of our discussion, it can never have value in a traditional empirical framework. For example, skeptics and atheists are fond of noting what they refer to as “the complete lack of evidence” for telepathy or the soul, correct? Well, people once thought there was a “complete lack of evidence” for many things that are now currently known to exist in actuality – for example huge, flying rocks in space. “But it was science and empiricism that bolstered our understanding in that regard,” you might say. And I’d say certainly – and it will be science and empiricism that bolsters our understanding of telepathy and the soul – should either of these be genuinely amenable to empiricism. I think it’s a fair guess they are.
I agree that religion’s role includes the contribution of philosophical and psychological insights about the human condition. I would add that to a lesser degree, religion speaks on the physical world, too. For example, many religions claim that the physical, observable world is not all there is. Whether true or false, that is telling us something literal about the physical world – that it is but part and parcel of all worlds.
PhillyChief
says...CL, you’re equivocating. You know damn well there’s a difference between “the best available information and/or framework constitutes a limit” and “false limits are imposed”. One is mere unavoidable fact, the other is a choice of action. That’s not splitting hairs.
Your premise from the beginning has been, essentially, humans have imposed limits on knowledge and have been wrong, so it’s likely that they’ll be wrong again. You then use this to warrant the belief that we could be wrong about the supernatural.
When challenged on your premise, you first backpedalled (“Perhaps I shouldn’t have said they “try to” because I think it’s more an indirect effect than a conscious effort”) and then equivocated over “limits”. We could go ’round and ’round over this, and I’m sure you’d enjoy this, since it serves as a big distraction from the fact that under no circumstances would this issue ever warrant the belief you’re putting forth.
As been stated several times, all of the mistakes in science based on naturalism have been corrected by science based on naturalism. They have never been corrected by way of any system based on supernaturalism. If anything, “supernatural insight” has been found to be nonsense time and time again. So what’s warranted isn’t that a perpetually self-correcting means based on naturalism will one day become replaced by supernaturalism, but rather it’s only a matter of time before supernaturalism may be totally eclipsed and unwarranted.
Btw, I enjoyed the subtle “science must presume methodological naturalism”. Your implication is that science presumes a priori, (which I assume is another attempt at that “setting limits” bullshit). It’s a posteriori, because experience and evidence warrant this basis over others, including supernaturalism.
—————————–
off-topic
—————————–
“[M]yriad bits of cross-cultural circumstantial and anecdotal evidence exist” for alien visitation, too. :)
Had Constantine not picked Christianity and instead went with some polytheistic belief, there could be a column for polytheism with rows containing “criteria such as purported sightings, purported inspiration of texts, purported miracles, sightings across cultures, duration of purported sightings, etc” that dwarf the totals in the column for monotheism. Would one then be forced to dismiss monotheism in an “honest intellectual discussion”?
1. I don’t see why the absurd should be granted some intellectual respect simply because it’s dressed up as intellectual. A spade is a spade and should be treated as such and kept in the shed, not pampered in a palace and treated like the Queen of England.
2. I don’t see why one needs to be overly verbose and/or use privileged vocabulary and long established analogies when short, sweet, and new, creative analogies don’t just work as well, but often work better.
3. Sometimes people are so blinded by their pov that they need to be violently shaken from their contextual space and placed in a new one in order to see the flaws of their pov.
My points are presented pre-questioned, or else I’d never present them as my points in the first place, but they are always open for questioning. Unlike you CL, I don’t set out to “win” arguments and establish my points no matter how. I engage in argumentation to test the validity of my points. Is it my fault I’m nearly always right? Oh wait, I guess it is due to my pre-questioning stage. You ever give that a try? Oh right, you take your points to be right on faith.
The suggestion that I have yet to reasonably defend any of my points is rubbish, and certainly so coming from someone notorious for obfuscation, equivocation, and other surly -ations.
cl
says...Sorry it took me a while to get back to you.
Okay, maybe it’s not splitting hairs… but it is splitting the protein filaments that protrude through the surface of the epidermis. Seriously though, I already admitted to poor choice in words but there’s nothing wrong with the cogency of my argument. “The best available information and/or framework constitutes a limit” and “false limits are imposed” are qualitatively equal when it is made clear that the false limits imposed are not necessarily imposed by scientists on purpose. That’s the difference I’ve established. Yet, when scientific expert so-and-so says such-and-such is impossible because of reason X, Y or Z, they’ve established a limit, and nearly all limits thusly established have proven false. You cannot deny that and retain my respect, not that that matters or anything ;)
That’s exactly correct, but I object in that what you refer to as belief in this sentence is actually an undeniable statistical possibility strengthened by real-world precedent. Where there is gray area is in the strength of the statistical possibility.
You equate clarification with backpedaling? I’ll make a note. And I’ve not equivocated over limits. Yes, there is a slight difference between unconscious, “thinking inside the box” errors and willful ignorance or closed-mindedness. For example, take two groups of scientists, A and B. Group A never discovers QM because they’re innocently, mentally stuck in a Newtonian box. Note that they have not necessarily left the NULL position regarding QM. However, Group B never discovers QM because they accept and rest on the laurel that Newtonian descriptions explain all motion. Group B has left the NULL position. Now sure, there’s a slight difference in the approach of these two groups, but the end result is the same in both cases – a false limit has arose and/or been imposed. Regardless of how or why the false limit arose, the false limit blinded both groups to the possibility of non-Newtonian descriptions of motion that could explain the empirical data. So address the meat of the claim, not the beverage.
I actually don’t enjoy mental masturbation that much, but what belief do you declare that I’m putting forth? This post did not put forth any belief – it asked a question based on valid observations – Why aren’t less science lovers atheist?
Well whoop-dee-doo, got me there! Problem is, science cannot proceed without assuming methodological naturalism in the first place, so of course natural explanations are going to replace supernatural explanations in science, because that’s what science seeks to do – explain the processes we see around us via natural, empirical processes. How can two methods of explaining reality compete when one of the methods is not even invited to the game? The superiority of natural explanations is a mere rhetorical trick, a false argument. And however easily eschewable as nonsense “supernatural insight” might be in a purely scientific discussion, note that science is equally as eschewable as nonsense in a purely religious discussion. So you bask in yet another Pyrrhic victory here.
As regards science, supernaturalism has long been totally eclipsed and unwarranted. We don’t need supernatural ideas to move forward in an epistemology that presupposes naturalism. And in my manner of reasoning, there is no distinction between “supernaturalism” and “naturalism” because the two words are just classifications of one reality. That which exists is part of the order of nature regardless of whether or not that which exists is falsifiable. Hence, we really use “supernatural” as a linguistic euphemism for human ignorance. Yet if angels and demons exist, surely they are as much an order of nature as stars and planets, right? What I’m getting at here is that in the context we’re in, supernaturalism vs. naturalism is a false dichotomy.
My implication? Methodological naturalism is one of the very pillars of science, Philly. Science seeks to explain phenomena via empirical data. Is there not an inseverable link between empirical data and methodological naturalism? If yes, then what’s your point? If no, then am I misunderstanding you? Or are you misunderstanding science? Or, are you claiming that I’m misunderstanding science?
That’s correct. So the level of credibility we can assign to the Piper / V Alien theory is greater than the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s.
That’s correct, and in my table there would be column for every god and God that’s ever been proposed. Didn’t you watch WWF as a kid? We gotta let everyone fight or else it’s not a Royal Rumble. See, “polytheism” and “monotheism” are not mutually exclusive, so again you’re arguing false absolutes. I do not ascribe to monotheism. The idea that there is only one supernatural being is absurd, but I do ascribe to the idea that there is only one Most High, for lack of a better word. Hence, I wouldn’t have a column for either monotheism or polytheism or atheism, because those are categorical adjectives, not proper nouns. In other words, the table is designed for evaluating each individual claimed entities, not ideas that pit groups of claimed entities against others.
Can you see the difference? Take the Bible for instance – it is very polytheistic in that it identifies several other gods or spiritual entities besides God. We’ve got Beelzebub, Baal, Legion and all sorts of other characters. So, say our columns for Beelzebub, Baal and Legion contain significant data. Such would certainly support the factuality of their existence (polytheism), but your reasoning entails that this data would somehow compete with YHWH (monotheism). Such is inaccurate, because the factuality of Beelzebub, Baal and Legion’s existence also happens to support the factuality of YHWH’s existence, since a large part of our data for these gods is found in the very same source as the data for YHWH. So nobody would be forced to dismiss either monotheism or polytheism, because the two are false opposites!
I agree, that’s why I don’t promote Intelligent Design or Holocaust Denial, for example.
I agree in spirit, but do you want an army of ignorant dumb-asses wielding spades running around your neighborhood? I don’t. So what better way to disarm them than to let everyone know they’re just a bunch of dumb-asses wielding spades? So on the one hand, of course we should not give undue credit to certain ideas. On the other hand, we must discuss all ideas, and the ones that truly deserve the label of spade will always be in the eye of the beholder.
I’ll make note of that. Since we’re now on the topic of stylistic preference, what I’ve seen of your style is flippant, overly sarcastic and knee-jerk. To me, thoughtful and thorough responses are better suited to intellectual progress, and I don’t think you’ve seen enough of my writing or my analogies to make an accurate judgment so save it.
I agree, and I take painstaking efforts to challenge my own ideas and see them from my opponent’s pov. Do you have an alter-ego named Non-Atheist PhillyChief that you argue with? Do you critique your own arguments in other threads?
Now you make assumptions about my motives, yet, the aforementioned examples combined with many instances where I have admitted error and learned from others clearly contradict your accusation against me. Just being honest, I’ve never once seen anything like that from you in any thread, but I’ll be happy to review any links that suggest you actually are amenable to correction.
Good, another point on which we can agree. I do the same.
I disagree strongly. Look how bad you’ve failed in this thread, for example. Do you really believe that irrelevant false dichotomies defend your points here?
Again you make an assumption about me. So, you have a pre-questioning stage that you fancy pertinent, eh? Good for you. I don’t limit myself to pre-questioning – I’m always questioning my points. Perhaps the problem is that you only pre-question when you should also post-question?
BWAHAHAH!!! LOLx17!!!! You really just said that about yourself? Wow. No offense, but now I’m absolutely convinced I’m talking inwards through the fence of a schoolyard. Although I really do enjoy bantering with you, anyone who would make such a claim about themselves is asking to be laughed at. In a question that is very analogous to the OP, how many ignoramuses throughout history have been terribly wrong, yet stated publicly that they were nearly always right?
cl
says...Man, I still can’t believe you made that last remark about the superiority of your own arguments…
So, on the idea that my opinion probably means very little to you, I decided to run your comment across a guy that I like to discuss UNIX with. We have a simple axiom by which we preliminarily discern who is likely to know a significant amount about UNIX vs. who is likely to be significantly ignorant about UNIX. Those who say, “Yeah, I know a little something about it” tend to fall into the former category near-exclusively, while those who know very little about UNIX tend to be the ones who make exaggerated claims like, “Yeah, I know nearly everything about UNIX.”
So after I stopped laughing uncontrollably when I read,
I went over to this guy with whom I like to discuss UNIX, and said, “Hey, you know our little axiom we use to discern what a person likely knows about UNIX?”
“Yeah,” he responds, “What about it?”
“Well, what would you say about somebody who claims they are right nearly all of the time in the context of their arguments about theism vs. atheism,” I asked.
He then made a “Hmph,” -type of sound, and replied, “I would say they’re equally full of shit. Surety is often a sure sign of stupidity.”
Now those are his words, and I’m not calling you stupid because I don’t think you are, but nonetheless I found his position interesting and valid.
So there you go. I’ve tested your claim in the real-world and found it equally preposterous.