Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#41

Post by Latty »

kbuchanan wrote: post #35

Lots of comments quibbling about whether he understands the word atheism. His central point—despite the interview title, which he didn't write—is: humility. He argues that to practice science is to avoid adopting a position of certainty, but rather, to ask questions. That almost everyone on this thread missed that point suggests maybe he's on to something.

Except they didn't, because every Atheist I have ever known would, given evidence, become a theist. They accept humility and that they don't know - they are simply stating their current position given the evidence they have.

The author doesn't understand the argument of the people they are criticizing, and so attributes a lack of humility to them based on their strawman of their argument.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#42

Post by zelon88 »

After a little (very little) digging the "prize" he won was the Templeton Prize for "affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works."

On the topic of science v. religion he also says "Science does not kill God."

In my opinion this mystical thinking begs the question if he can be trusted within his field. He obviously lacks the ability to remain impartial about his religion. He's playing out a personal crisis in the open for his entire field to witness.

There's just too many things wrong with this that I can't adequately format them all for this post. I feel like I shouldn't have to teach him about things like Atheism. He should have the impartiality to learn about them, accurately, on his own before he goes around making an unsubstantiated ass out of himself.

And who is this mystical fairy-tale Templeton organization who rewards whimsical fringe scientists?

How is a "creationist scientist" (oxymoron in-and-of itself) getting an award from a creationist philanthropic organization for doing bad science to promote creationism newsworthy in the science community?

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#43

Post by VikingCoder »

gamblor956 wrote: post #27
VikingCoder wrote: post #9

I hate the clickbait title. I hate how it will be misunderstood. I hate that the subtleties in his statement will be ignored. And to the people who care about this, his claim about atheism is pedantic. "I do not believe aliens abducted my dad." Sorry, but that's a perfectly rational thing to say, in all but the most academic of circles. In every-day life, I don't need to be so cautious as to say, "I have no evidence…

It's not pedantic. One is a statement of belief. The other one is not. In the context of a discussion on belief systems, it's the difference between night and day. And he's correct: atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, since it posits something that cannot be proven or disproven using existing scientific method.

There are people who call themselves atheists who define atheism as carefully as you want them to.

It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method."

We're debating how many people use a term the way you want them to, and how many people use a term the way I want them to.

Hence: pedantics.

EDIT:

Try this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#44

Post by DanBC »

krferriter wrote: post #40
rdruxn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some e…

No, an atheist is simply someone who does not affirmatively believe the claim that there are gods. This does not inherently entail the claim that there are no gods. If you do not accept the claim that there are gods, you are an atheist. Nothing about that breaches the Scientific Method. No evidence is required in order to neglect to accept a claim which was also not presented with scientific evidence. The author says…

Which dictionary are you using for your definition of atheism please?

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#45

Post by maxxxxx »

That's just about semantics. By that definition you pretty much have to be agnostic about everything where there is no direct proof, including elves, Santa Claus, dinosaurs in Congo, alien abductions and the tooth fairy. I can state the world will disappear in 10 years and nobody should be able to refute my claim but has to stay agnostic until 10 years have passed.

I am sure believing in a god is even less consistent with the scientific method that atheism is.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#47

Post by DanBC »

rgbrenner wrote: post #33
skissane wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to say more or less the same thing. The way people define the word "atheism" has changed. Traditionally, most people understood "atheism" to mean a positive disbelief in God – either, you are certain God doesn't exist, or at least you think the non-existence of God is significantly more likely than God's existence. People who are close to 50-50 on God's existence would call themselves "agnostics" not "ath…

No, atheism does not mean: I have proof of gods non-existence. This is a position put forward by theists who wish to push the burden of proof off of their side. Theists put forth a claim: god exists. They need to prove that claim. It's not up to anyone else. Atheism is simply looking at the evidence that has been provided for the claim. It is non-existent. Therefore it cannot be said that god exists. You need to prov…

The dictionary definition of atheism is a belief that there is no god. This is a long lasting definition.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#48

Post by mindcrime »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #26
mindcrime wrote: post #3

OK, he's obviously a brilliant guy, but I find his argument about atheism pretty weak... or rather, I should say that it only makes sense at a pretty abstract level. And that, IMO, is basically the same level of abstraction where one can make a compelling argument that science rests on (a form of) faith just like religion does (but possibly not the same form). Anyway, "belief" in the supernatural makes, as far as I c…

"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted scientific principles." ... Well our current flavour of Science is effectively materialist and it starts effectively with the assumption that 'the universe is made up of a bunch of laws' as we try to discover them. It postulates a priori a specific metaphysical position that immediately negates anything else ... so it's going to be impossi…

That's a fair point, but where do we cross the line from "science" to metaphysics and epistemology? I admit, I do come at science from a somewhat materialistic viewpoint, and Popperian viewpoint... but that's mainly because I don't see any other approach being as valid as a way to establish knowledge about our world.

That said, I'm open to being convinced of something else...

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#49

Post by DanBC »

zaksoup wrote: post #14
hota_mazi wrote: post #5

> it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic. Surprising for someone with his background to not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and obviously not understanding that these two are not mutually exclusive. > "I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” That's absolutely not what atheism is. Atheism is a single position…

I'm not sure I agree with you. By my understanding an atheist would accept the claim "there is no god" An agnostic rejects both "there is a god" and "there is no god" I do like the way of framing these belief systems as "what claims do you accept as true", though, I'm going to start using that to help me describe and frame my own beliefs!

Weird you get downvoted when you're using the mainstream definitions in use in many dictionaries.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+atheist&t=ffab&atb=v100...

We have to go all the way down the page, to Wikipedia, to find a link that suggests atheism is anything other than the disbelief in god.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#50

Post by mindcrime »

Latty wrote: post #28
rdruxn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some e…

His point is bunk because it is fundamentally mischaracterising the argument of atheists. It isn't about there being literally proof of no god, it is about how we act in our daily setting. The classic counter is Russell's teapot. You can't prove to me that there is not a teapot, undetectable by our current tooling (tiny, invisible, etc...), orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars. That said, if…

An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic.

There's a little bit more nuance to it than that. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle.

Post reply on HN