Saturday, November 06, 2010
Atheism Unbound
PZ Mxyzptlk continues to resist the notion that the existence of gods (or the supernatural) can be demonstrated by science.I read Greta Christina's list of events that would convince her [reccomended by Jerry Coyne], and I have to say that none of them would sway me. They'd convince me that there are unexplainable phenomena and beings greater than myself, but I already believe that with no problem and without budging from atheism. I've already dealt with the 900 foot tall Jesus fallacy (it's not a prior conclusion of religious thought), and while finding amazingly detailed scientific information in a holy book would be impressive, evidence of beings in the past who were smarter than me isn't evidence of a god. Also, they haven't because they didn't, so postulating circumstances that have been shown not to have occurred is only persuasive in the most abstract and imaginary way possible.
The emphasis and [cough] methodology may be slightly different from my own but the point is the same: atheism is an honorable and self-sufficient philosophical position that does not need to be weakly, if at all, propped up by science. It can be, as all good modern philosophy, informed by science, but it is not in thrall to it ... or vice versa.
Those who insist that they are do no favor to atheism or to science.
.
Labels: Methodological Naturalism
Comments:
<< Home
"... atheism is an honorable and self-sufficient philosophical position that does not need to be weakly, if at all, propped up by science ..."
But that's not what PZ Myers wants to use science for. He's not worried that atheism needs propping up by science but wants to use science to establish that that atheism is the only honourable philosophical position. His aim isn't to use science to show that atheism is respectable but rather to have science show that religion and the religious are worthy of the contempt with which he views them.
But that's not what PZ Myers wants to use science for. He's not worried that atheism needs propping up by science but wants to use science to establish that that atheism is the only honourable philosophical position. His aim isn't to use science to show that atheism is respectable but rather to have science show that religion and the religious are worthy of the contempt with which he views them.
# posted by 
: 12:33 AM
: 12:33 AM
... wants to use science to establish that that atheism is the only honourable philosophical position. His aim isn't to use science to show that atheism is respectable but rather to have science show that religion and the religious are worthy of the contempt with which he views them.
As sympathetic as I am to theists, I have no problem with that. If someone wants to use science as a part of a (more or less) clearly stated philosophical argument against belief, theists will just have to make their best case in opposition. My objection in this whole kurfuffle is to those who claim (and there are many who do, despite their equivocation when challenged) that atheism is a scientific result.
As sympathetic as I am to theists, I have no problem with that. If someone wants to use science as a part of a (more or less) clearly stated philosophical argument against belief, theists will just have to make their best case in opposition. My objection in this whole kurfuffle is to those who claim (and there are many who do, despite their equivocation when challenged) that atheism is a scientific result.
I am very sympathetic to theists, and I agree with this. If one believes that all things come from god, then that includes the natural world. And what we discover about the natural world should inform about the nature of god.
To believe otherwise is to believe in an untrustworthy god that's just messin' with us.
To believe otherwise is to believe in an untrustworthy god that's just messin' with us.
# posted by : 9:40 AM
: 9:40 AM
And what we discover about the natural world should inform about the nature of god.
So the natural world tells us that god is partly made out of rainbows and smells like photosynthesis.
So the natural world tells us that god is partly made out of rainbows and smells like photosynthesis.
# posted by : 10:36 AM
: 10:36 AM
To believe otherwise is to believe in an untrustworthy god that's just messin' with us.
So we don't believe otherwise because if we believed otherwise then we would believe otherwise.
So we don't believe otherwise because if we believed otherwise then we would believe otherwise.
# posted by : 10:42 AM
: 10:42 AM
If you want specifics, I would say theology needs to recognize that a tsunami that kills thousands is just as natural as a rainbow - neither is necessarily "evil" in the natural word regardless of whether we like one and suffer from the other.
And theologians would need to reconcile that with their idea of god.
To believe otherwise - believe in the context of religion in case that somehow wasn't clear - would be to believe in a god that doesn't relate to what we know about the natural word IMO.
Or, 386sx, were you arguing in favor of a god that sends tsunamis just because?
And theologians would need to reconcile that with their idea of god.
To believe otherwise - believe in the context of religion in case that somehow wasn't clear - would be to believe in a god that doesn't relate to what we know about the natural word IMO.
Or, 386sx, were you arguing in favor of a god that sends tsunamis just because?
# posted by : 11:05 AM
: 11:05 AM
And what we discover about the natural world should inform about the nature of god.
Or to quote ERV's blog epigram,
If we're made in Gods image, God's made of gag, pol, and env.
Or to quote ERV's blog epigram,
If we're made in Gods image, God's made of gag, pol, and env.
It's DM/David Mabus/Dennis Markuze, so I assume he has been reported repeatedly and his ISP doesn't care. Besides, it would take more effort than the minor annoyance the pathetic loser causes.
"My objection in this whole kurfuffle is to those who claim ... that atheism is a scientific result."
I was just pointing out the fact atheism doesn't need to be propped up by science is irrelevant to PZM because he needs the stronger claim that it is a scientific result in order to achieve his goal.
I was just pointing out the fact atheism doesn't need to be propped up by science is irrelevant to PZM because he needs the stronger claim that it is a scientific result in order to achieve his goal.
# posted by : 7:47 PM
: 7:47 PM
Or, 386sx, were you arguing in favor of a god that sends tsunamis just because?
I guess I was arguing in favor of theists. They can decide whatever they want about the nature of god(s). And they do. If a god sends a tsunami just because, then it does. If it don't then it don't. Good luck figuring out which one. :P
I guess I was arguing in favor of theists. They can decide whatever they want about the nature of god(s). And they do. If a god sends a tsunami just because, then it does. If it don't then it don't. Good luck figuring out which one. :P
# posted by : 4:25 AM
: 4:25 AM
Well sure people can make claims like that. I have relatives who may think that way.
But I won't give them or their theology any credence, which is all I was saying.
But I won't give them or their theology any credence, which is all I was saying.
# posted by : 7:18 AM
: 7:18 AM
I hear ya TB. But I don't see why nature should tell us anything about the nature of god. So although it might be practical (in order to convince theist to have a "better" or a "nicer" theology) to tell theists that nature should tell us about the nature of god, it isn't exactly 100% honest. But we have to live in the real world I guess. So we have to be practical.
# posted by : 7:09 PM
: 7:09 PM
As I understand it, there's as much evidence for a god that set the universe in motion and let it run as there is for multiverse theory.
So I don't see any dishonesty in acknowledging it as being one in a range of possibilities that we have no evidence for.
So I don't see any dishonesty in acknowledging it as being one in a range of possibilities that we have no evidence for.
# posted by : 8:45 AM
: 8:45 AM
Wow! This blog looks just like my old one! It's on a totally different subject but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Excellent choice of colors!
My web blog diets that work for women
Post a Comment
My web blog diets that work for women
# posted by : 1:50 PM
: 1:50 PM << Home
