True. But that's not what atheistic science uses to validate its claims.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your methods of validation. My understanding of science (and a lot of others' understanding as well) is that atheism or theism has not much to do with science. You can't validate either the existence or non-existence of God through scientific methods. There is "proof" that supports either belief. Ultimately, it just isn't a very good mechanism for the task.
What I am also pointing out is that it is one's way of conceptualizing God that impacts whether or not God is observable (either to the self or to other beings). If I define God as Nature (or, rather, that Nature is part of God and the rest of God is not observable), then I am defining my God in a way that is observable on two planes. First, the processes and systems of Nature can be studied through science. Second, any underlying spiritual connections between myself and Nature can be experienced by me, but not observed by others. (Well, you can observe
some connections objectively, but that is a digression I won't get into at the moment.)
No more or less than your thoughts on the matter. We are both of us fallible. That is why I remain open-minded to virtually any possibility. I don't particularly think atheists are wrong for being atheist. If they are being honest to their own experience, so be it. I think atheists are wrong for presuming to think they have figured it out and the rest (most) of humanity is delusional. Yes, I do find that arrogant. And I find Western science arrogant if/when it presumes to be superior to other cultures' ways of knowing. There is more than one way to approach the universe- to manipulate it, to study it, to understand it. Western science is one way among many, and it has its advantages and disadvantages. As an anthropologist, I simply cannot get on board with the mindset that somehow a small group of (mostly) Westerner, (mostly) white, and (mostly) mid-to-upper class folks have figured out that God is a delusion and the rest of the peoples of the world are simply stuck in wishful thinking. I find that to be ethnocentric and condescending toward others.
Saying God cannot be found in chaos is not, in part, a definition of God's supposed attributes?
I have attempted, recently, to define its absence. Subtle change of language but a fundamental difference of approach.
Definition of absence is, by extension, defining what you expect to see. If you define the absence of God as random chance, then you are implying that God would yield order (and order that you can observe and is universal).
I am proposing that whether or not someone experiences/observes God depends on how you are defining God (or Its absence). I observe God where you observe natural processes. I am not observing different processes from you, but I am exploring them in different ways- in a way of interaction, connection as opposed to only observation.
Rather I go with the best scenario that the available evidence points to at this time.
As do I. I just have different evidence, apparently. Or a different interpretation of the evidence I have.
What is "best" is necessarily defined by each of us for ourselves. Hence, the problem of atheism (or religion, for that matter) defining what is "best" for others. I think to define what is best for another human being is kind of patronizing.
But I do wish to stand up for the values that are not intended to insult anyone, but to simply state truth to the very best of my understanding.
I fully respect that. I know quite a few atheists and I respect that, given their own evidence and interpretation, that is their honest assessment. Given my evidence and interpretation, I came to different conclusions. I don't find the atheist position insulting for an individual. I find it insulting when anyone thinks they have the Right Answer (whether it is a religious or atheistic one) and then thinks the rest of the world is delusional. Similarly, most atheists I know feel it is insulting that religious folks tell them they are "lost" and such like.
I attempt at all times to apply the scientific method because it has no bias, no preconceptions to uphold.
Really? There is a ton of literature on the scientific method and Western science more broadly, its cultural bias and the biases that it inevitably incorporates when it is implemented by people. It's a regular topic of conversation in cultural anthropology, since we've studied enough cultures to see that other cultures may practice science differently, which can be more or less effective given the goals of the individual. The scientific method and indeed the entire paradigm of objective science has a rich history that is grounded in Western culture and was designed for certain types of investigation. And it has always been plagued by the bias that necessarily occurs both in any system that is culturally bound and in any system that relies on people to implement it.
Don't get me wrong, I love the scientific method and I use it for research. But I recognize its biases and cultural history, as well as my own biases when I use it. But we can be aware of our own biases and then work with them honestly in science.
In the post on this thread to which you first responded I set out a scientifically based proposition that did not require any 'faith' to validate it. Nor any God. But your response was full of the emotions of belief. I described systems observable by anyone, you what you "feel". You can measure examples of what I propose, but I cannot measure your belief.
First, your scientifically based proposition was defining God in certain ways (or the absence of God in certain ways). I was pointing out that by defining it, you are already putting forth untested assumptions, which is not good science. I wasn't saying faith was necessary to validate or not. I was pointing out a flaw in the design of your statements.
Second, I actually wasn't being very emotional at all. I was simply saying that I've observed/experienced something different from you. You can't tell me what I've observed/experienced, because it is outside the range of what you know. There is nothing emotional about that statement.
Of course I can't measure my belief and I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that each of us is defining God (either by Its presence or absence, we indicate our conceptualization of Its attributes). By my definition, even stuff you observe is God (natural processes). By your definition, nothing counts unless it is observable by all people equally (I think, you can correct me if I am wrong) and is evidence of intervention or universal order. Two separate definitions yield two separate sets of assumptions and two different conclusions. Because there is no "correct" definition of God, it's kind of a moot point. I wasn't arguing you must accept my definition, but rather pointing out the other possibilities- that your definition could be wrong. What you are looking for as evidence could be wrong.
Similarly, if you define God in a way that doesn't fit into my experience, I would say I have not experienced
that God.
There is no measurable unexplainable intervention in the systems described. They are all explainable as the natural progression of cause and effect in a chaotic universe.
My point is that it is not necessary to have a measurable unexplainable intervention in systems for God to exist. The absence of it does not disprove God in general, but only your version of God (i.e., something that would have an unexplicable intervention in systems). Your assumptions are defining your outcome as much as your evidence.
I explained in my reply to Cyberpi why I think chaos excludes the notion of God, order, divine planning or whatever you may wish to label it.
I think God, order, and divine planning (which in itself is nebulous in meaning) are entirely different things. I read the response to cyberpi, but I don't have the same exclusions and whatnot that you do. I don't tend to think of God in terms of order or planning, but rather in terms of connection and creativity. It is in connecting with other beings that there is God. It is in the natural processes of creativity (including destruction) that there is God. Fundamentally, for me, God is in the connecting and the ever-present changing of the universe, the constant transformation. The singularity behind it all is God, too.
To be honest it was a poor choice of adjective. Sometimes you get them when you post at 6am as your first coffee is brewing
The gist of what I was trying to say is that the universe does not care about what we do or do not think. It was here long before us and will be here long after we are gone.
That helps a ton. And I totally understand about 6 am. I'm barely up at that point, much less typing. LOL On this, I sort of agree. I think the universe
responds to what we do/think (as it is not monolithic, but made up of smaller entities). Whether or not it cares is another matter. Certainly, elements of the universe (for example, myself) cares about what other beings do/think. So, by extension, I would say at least some of God cares. Other parts of God shows different types of attributes. It's sort of like I think God exploded into a whole bunch of pieces of God, each unique in attributes, and there is more to God than this explosion too.
I think the second statement is more problematic. Who are "us" and "we"- me and you? We're just part of the universe, we don't really ever "go." We transform. Now, I believe in spirit and I think that transforms, but you do not. But even the stuff you do believe in, doesn't go. It transforms. "You" and "me" become dirt and later, other stuff. We continue indefinitely. This is partly what I am talking about with connection.
Equally, no offence, I believe that you believe what you do for reasons other than those you think.
OK. I think I am best qualified to explain why I think the way I do, just as you are best qualified to say why you think the way you do. For example, I do not tell you that you are atheist because you are jaded, or cynical, or are "lost" or trying to run from God (all things religious people have told my atheist friends, unfortunately). I take your word that you are atheist because it best explains your own evidence. I'd appreciate the same consideration, but if you really feel that you are more qualified to tell me my own reasoning and thoughts, I won't continue to complain. It wouldn't be the first time and I typically just ignore such patronizing attitudes. After all, I've been in a predominantly atheistic profession for years. I don't mind the discussion, even when it sounds a bit condescending.
