Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

Thomas said:
Yes, but that's just the methodology of the empirical sciences. There are other sciences, yet people seem to treat the empirical method as the be-all and end-all, the final arbiter of truth.
Click to expand...

So what are the "non-empirical" sciences?
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
Check what "empirical" means.
Click to expand...

Whew, they didn't change the meaning since last time, but you never now. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

In the context of medicine, it can mean "quackery". There are other meanings. Which one are you interested in discussing?
 
Indeed, the person observes the object to understand it.

But what does the person know about him or herself? After all, the quality of the tool of observation will be a deciding factor in making a correct interpretation of the workings of a fact.
 
Beautiful said:
Indeed, the person observes the object to understand it.

But what does the person know about him or herself? After all, the quality of the tool of observation will be a deciding factor in making a correct interpretation of the workings of a fact.
Click to expand...

Sure, but science experiments results are generally not considered valid until they have been reproduced or confirmed by others.
 
Cino said:
Please, can you summarize for lay consumption? I'm very much interested!
Click to expand...
The God v invisible pink unicorns thing?

It's a question of categories. We put God in a category of His own. Unicorn is in the category of animal. There are horse-like animals, there are horned animals, so the existence of a horned horse is not impossible.

Pink? That's a matter of shade, isn't it? I'd say pale creamy-like is OK, or deep ruddy is also OK, but bubblegum pink has a limited camouflage effectiveness, for instance ...

Invisible animals? There's a massive problem here that anything in the 'animal' category must a priori be corporeal, and the corporeal is visible.

The evidence for unicorns comes primarily from sources whom we now appreciate were imagining what such creatures might loo like, often inventing fabulous creatures to be found in fabulous lands, or what might have been the Indian rhino...

Again, the whole idea points to a proper understanding of the method one is using to affirm or refute something. An invisible pink unicorn is dubious in itself for very good reasons, whereas the same argument cannot be applied to God, so it renders the comparison flawed. The same rule stands when some compare God and Santa Claus, or ask whether God can make a stone so big He can't move it, or can He make a four-sided triangle, etc.
 
This reminds me of Jim Rohn telling people, "no that car (or house or diamond or yacht) is not too expensive... It is just too expensive for you!

No, that question is not evidence...

It is just evidence for you.

Hokier than thou responses, or you gotta have faith, have rubbed me the wrong way for decades.

Openly exploring options, explaining ones view without apologetics or belittling...

These may not answer all my questions or complete my understanding...

But I respect them and they are greatly appreciated (he says knowing no one 'needs' his respect or appreciation)
 
wil said:
This reminds me of ...
Click to expand...
No, there is a logical point — the argument assumes invisible pink unicorns are analogous to God — they're not, based on a priori assumptions about the nature of God and the nature of unicorns, ergo the analogy falls down. It's a variation of the Russell's Teapot argument.

The basis of the argument, however, assumes that because I believe in God, and you can't disprove the existence of God, then the existence of God is proven. That's an illogical argument. Conversely, if you disbelieve in God, and I cannot prove the existence of God, then the non-existence of God is proven. Again, the logical is flawed.

The point being that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural entity by natural means, therefore the OP is correct, atheism is no more a logical scientific position than theism.

That the logic, rationale and reasoning of the argument rubs you the wrong way is neither here nor there, as the statement is logically consistent.
 
Cino said:
I don't like the New Atheists either, especially when their Atheism is just an excuse for pandering to racists, as in the case of Sam Harris.

But really, that "absence of evidence" thing does nothing for me. Absence of evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't make anybody want to contemplate her existence, right?

There are better ways to approach that.

Hey, for a couple million dollars, I'd be willing to change my mind and rebuke any scientist who refuses to be open-minded about her Invisible Pink Single-Hornedness. What's the name of that prize again, the one he received? Where can I apply?
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of the nuz-atheists(or rather the nu-atheism. The nu-atheists vary in their obliviousness, hypocrisy, pseudoskepticism/willfull ignorance and arrogance, and in their views on how atheists and classical materialists should approach various different religions and sociopolitics)...I rather loved Christopher Hitchens, not his hard atheism and pseudo skepticism but his nuanced approach to not looking down his nose at all religious intellectuals the same nor at Deism and agnosticism. But loved him for his contrarian freethinking mind and intellect...on issues I agreed with him on and ones I didn't(to varying degrees).

But in regards Sam Harris, firstly he has a more open minded approach to mysticism/transcendental ideas than do some of the others in the high priesthood(or the disciples of) the nu-atheist movement . He's written and spoken extensively on his neuroscientific research and conciousness studies and believes conciousness is not a emergent property of biological evolution but is a fundamental aspect of the cosmos(though he of course believes sentient mind is emergent)...point is he's rather open minded to certain spiritual/mystic concepts or experiences.
And how does he *pander* to *racists*? That's a baseless, slanderous false accusation without merit in objective reasoning or reality. You better be ready to back up such extreme allegations as *racism* and *sexism* and *(file in the blank)aphobia* aimed at someone so willy nilly(suggesting you don't actually understand the meaning and implications of such terms/accusations or what they actually entail).
I'm actually not a big fan if his, I agree with him on some things, disagree on others, regardless I do think he's a relatively intelligent thinker, and at least he does have that open mind regarding conciousness and the mystic or numinous.
But *racist*? Come on. What do you base such accusations on?
And what others of the nu-atheists are you also implicating in this accusation? Since you alluded to others. And what evidence or proof do you have to back these claims/accusations up?
These are serious terms/labels/accusations , you cant just go around labeling people with them willy nilly without proof, that's called false accusation and slander/defamation/libel and we reasonably have laws and codes of honor against that.
 
Contrarian Deist said:
And how does he *pander* to *racists*?
Click to expand...
Just listen to one of his many podcasts. It's skillfully woven into his pseudo-mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Edited to add a well-documented example:

According to Harris, IQ is tied to race and ethnicity (from an interview with Bill Murray).

Psychology does not support this notion of his, rather, intelligence is influenced by all kinds of factors, such as financial conditions while growing up, trauma, quality of schools, nutrition, exposure to environmental toxins...
 
Last edited:
Cino said:
Just listen to one of his many podcasts. It's skillfully woven into his pseudo-mystical mumbo-jumbo.

Edited to add a well-documented example:

According to Harris, IQ is tied to race and ethnicity (from an interview with Bill Murray).

Psychology does not support this notion of his, rather, intelligence is influenced by all kinds of factors, such as financial conditions while growing up, trauma, quality of schools, nutrition, exposure to environmental toxins...
Click to expand...

I've listened to him a number of times over the years.
He's never said IQ is tied at all to race(skin color)...only to CULTURE(socialization) and/or to a lesser extent genetic factors(that are not skin color based/racial)...and he's right, as a generality, there are exceptions to every rule...and Harris admits this fact.
That's not *racism*, as racism is about skin color, not culture or genetics.

You're spreading the meaning of race and racism so thin as to make the term meaningless.

Let me guess you also think he is racist(him and Maher both) for what he and Bill aher said in regards Islam and muslim cultures on Real Time with Bill Maher several years ago when Ben Affleck was also that program and said *that's gross, that's racist* at them. Please tell me I'm wrong, that you don't actually agree with Ben's accusation of *racist* towards them in that debate.

Anyways, try again. I don't think you actually know or understand what *racism/racist* actually means(or for that the very term *race*)
 
Contrarian Deist said:
Let me guess you also think he is racist(him and Maher both)
Click to expand...

No, I was referring to him chumming with Bill Murray in a long podcast, as a well-known exmple.

I know that the term "race" is a very complex one over in the US, a very important category. My wife always laughs out loud when she reads a psychological paper by US writers who obsessively categorize "caucasian", etc. Anyway, I know this idea is more real both subjectively and socially over the pond than where I live.

To me, and much of the rest of the world, theterm "race" as applied to human persons is poorly defined, and not a scientific term. We do have our racists, and have to engage with them, and know how they pull in this and that and the other - misunderstood genetics, mainly, but also vague rambling ideas about culture, social contexts, diet, developmental traits, whatever.

Building on top of this shaky foundation, a racist then claims that it, race, is the fundamental factor determining a human person's abilities, and derives a hierarchy of such races from it, with themselves in a position to look down on others.

And that's exactly what Harris does, all the while coyly lamenting how he's practically forced by his scientific approach (the numbers! The statistics! The sheer correlations!) to admit to the existence of race.

So ok, he fell to circular reasoning. Happens to all of us one time or another. Luckily, we have peers, who can point these errors out to us, giving us a chance to realize we screwed up, react appropriately, and move on.

Cue Harris: He's still, to this day, accusing people of wanting to destroy his reputation. Has he acknowledged his unscientific racist nonsense? No, not Harris! Someone who meditates as much as he does, he will point out, can't be deigned to take criticism from less enlightened persons.

Now, tell me what your understanding of race and racism is. Then, let's move on, shall we? There are plenty of faith related topics for you to be contrarian about.
 
Wasn't it Stephen J Gould who was the proponent of Non-Overlapping Magisteria? Science relates to "how," Religion relates to "why," and trying to reconcile the two is essentially pitting apples against oranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top