Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

Absence of evidence doesn't prove non-existence, but it might raise major doubts.
 
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?
 
Cino said:
I don't like the New Atheists
Click to expand...
Don't get me started!

When I encounter the ones that are more literal scripture readers than southern bible thumpers.

Or the ones that are absolutely indignant and condescending when they discuss things with those they don't know but suddenly tiptoe around the people who they care about hurting their feelings.

Or the RIP down that plaque or cross just because. Or how Christmas sales are an attack on their beliefs.

As I wish they would take a breath, I need to take a breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Theism v. Atheism seems like a pointless argument to me. It's not an intellectual thing.
 
Cino said:
What, the scientific method? I do think it is an intellectual thing.
Click to expand...

I meant arguing about something which cannot be proven or disproven. Something which is not amenable to the scientific method, not falsifiable.
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
I meant arguing about something which cannot be proven or disproven.
Click to expand...
This is the lions share of religious discussion and I agree.

When it comes to the existence of heaven and hell, never mind the nature..

Sin? Seems something we can tackle.

As does the workings if prayer...

Of course we'd have to work on agreeing on definitions first.
 
Cino said:
But really, that "absence of evidence" thing does nothing for me.
Click to expand...
But I think you're a reasonable, rational, logical sort ... the absence of evidence is proof of everything if you're a conspiracy nut! It's also the basis of the kind of argument that assumes if God exists S/He's somehow obliged to prove Her/His existence to me.

Cino said:
Absence of evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't make anybody want to contemplate her existence, right?
Click to expand...
LOL, we did that one on my BA Div course! (It's a category thing.)

Cino said:
There are better ways to approach that.
Click to expand...
Yep, but sometimes you have to clear the ground first.
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
Theism v. Atheism seems like a pointless argument to me. It's not an intellectual thing.
Click to expand...
Oooh ... not sure. Aquinas' Five Ways? There's a great discussion between Jonathan Miller and Denys Turner.

I agree that the argument between theists and atheists is essentially pointless. But as a theist, what appeals to me is so many of the fundamental beliefs of atheists are founded on really dodgy predicates.

Interestingly, Turner begins by discussing not so much the question of God, but the questions which any civilisation should routinely ask itself, and those questions which get ruled out, for the most facile of reasons, the idea that the empirical sciences has anything meaningful to offer on the question of the existence or otherwise of God, for example.

So I agree that it is a pointless argument, but nevertheless in a civilised society a necessary one, otherwise (as we've seen with New Atheism) the danger is there is no discussion at all, on irrational, illogical and anti-intellectual grounds.

I fear we live in an age when any intellectual argument is being shut down in favour of volitive populism.
 
Mrs Malaprop said:
... Something which is not amenable to the scientific method...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thomas said:
But I think you're a reasonable, rational, logical sort ... the absence of evidence is proof of everything if you're a conspiracy nut! It's also the basis of the kind of argument that assumes if God exists S/He's somehow obliged to prove Her/His existence to me.
Click to expand...

Right. And as such, the scientific method is a really poor target for it, because without anything to observe in a reproducible way, there is simply nothing to apply the scientific method to. (And yes, you are right to point out that it is part of empirical science).

Still, I'd take that "just under 1.5 million $" prize mentioned in the article, and bash scientists for not being interested in conspiracy-nut kind of argumentation. Talk is cheap like that.

Thomas said:
LOL, we did that one on my BA Div course! (It's a category thing.)
Click to expand...

Please, can you summarize for lay consumption? I'm very much interested!

(Edited to quote the prize money more precisely)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top