Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method • Hacker News Board

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#51

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #36

hota_mazi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge. They are complementary. You can be atheist/agnostic, theist/agnostic, atheist/gnostic, theist/gnostic. It's a matrix. Also there are two flavors of atheism: those that believe there is no god (a minority in my opinion, and that position requires a burden of proof). And there are atheists who simply reject the claim that there is a god. They say…

This doesn't match any dictionary I have. Atheism: belief there is no god. Agnosticism: we don't, we can't, know whether a god exists or not. > They say there might be a god, or maybe not, This by definition is not atheism, it's agnosticism.

Not a dictionary, but how about an encyclopedia? Wikipedia shows that there is a distinction within the group of people who can be called "atheist", regarding how strong/affirmative a claim they are making.

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

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#52

Post by Latty » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #39

Latty wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The dictionary definition of atheism (Chambers, 1990) Atheism: The belief that there is no god. Agnostic: Someone who believes one can only know about material things and…

As noted, most of the time (including in this dictionary definition), we do not distinguish between "proven false" and "not proven true", because there are very few cases where such a distinction matters.

"Belief"s are not immutable - we believe in things, but given evidence we can change those beliefs.

If I say "I believe in man-made climate change", I am not arguing that I would not change my opinion if evidence was provided that it wasn't the case.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#53

Post by rgbrenner » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #39

Latty wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The dictionary definition of atheism (Chambers, 1990) Atheism: The belief that there is no god. Agnostic: Someone who believes one can only know about material things and…

Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition:

Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

This is consistent with atheist writers like Dawkins.

Can you explain the theological background of Chambers, since you seem to think he's some sort of authority on the matter?

Edit: This from wikipedia on the Chambers dictionary:

The Chambers Dictionary is widely used by British crossword solvers and setters, and by Scrabble players (though it is no longer the official Scrabble dictionary). It contains many more dialectal, archaic, unconventional and eccentric words than its rivals, and is noted for its occasional wryly humorous definitions. Examples of such definitions include those for éclair ("a cake, long in shape but short in duration") and middle-aged ("between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner").[2] These jocular definitions were removed by the publisher in the 1970s, but many of them were reinstated in 1983 because of the affection in which they were held by readers.

So you're using a dictionary whose purpose is entertainment, rather than accuracy.. and insisting this is the definition we should all use? What a joke.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#54

Post by CharlesColeman » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #42

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 religio…

> 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?

If you'd read the article, you'd have found that Marcelo Gleiser, the recipient of the award, self-identifies as an agnostic. And a tiny amount of digging shows he's also obviously not a creationist: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/01/18/145338804/why-d....

Your comment consists of little but bomb-throwing falsehoods, and is really about a straw-man of your own invention. It's not really the kind of thing that should be posted in a flamewar-prone topic, or anywhere for that matter.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#55

Post by rgbrenner » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #47

rgbrenner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You posted this all over the thread. I already responded to one of your other posts.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#56

Post by hota_mazi » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #36

hota_mazi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge. They are complementary. You can be atheist/agnostic, theist/agnostic, atheist/gnostic, theist/gnostic. It's a matrix. Also there are two flavors of atheism: those that believe there is no god (a minority in my opinion, and that position requires a burden of proof). And there are atheists who simply reject the claim that there is a god. They say…

This doesn't match any dictionary I have. Atheism: belief there is no god. Agnosticism: we don't, we can't, know whether a god exists or not. > They say there might be a god, or maybe not, This by definition is not atheism, it's agnosticism.

Again, you are bundling together the concepts of belief and knowledge.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. Both are defined by different words: (a)theism is about belief, (a)gnosticism is about knowledge.

The first dictionary hit I get on atheism matches my claim:

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#57

Post by erik14th » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

atheism is dumb, whoever thought that opposing a metaphysical concept that lies way too close to the heart of those who believe in it was a good idea to curb religious influence wasn't on their brightest day.

Determining the lack of evidence of connection between religious entities and a supposed god is possible, saying a concept as ill defined as "god" does not exist doesn't even make sense to me.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#58

Post by hota_mazi » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #45

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…

Atheism is an answer to a question. It has exactly nothing to do with the scientific the method in much the same way that "What is your favorite ice cream?" has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Belief in god, on the other hand, is making a claim, and as such, can be verified by the scientific method.

It has been, actually, and belief in god is by definition disproven by the scientific method.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#59

Post by Latty » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #50

Latty wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 atheis…

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

Strong Atheist: There is no god, I can prove it. Weak Atheist: There is no god, there is no reason to believe there is one. Agnostic: I don't know if there is a god.

The difference is not subtle. It is the difference between having an opinion and not having one.

Strong vs Weak atheism is basically a worthless distinction to most people, because having no evidence of something means you don't believe in it in the scientific method. No, it isn't proof of the non-existence, but we still act like it doesn't exist until proven otherwise, otherwise we have to believe literally anything that you can imagine that isn't provably non-existent (back to Russel's teapot).

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#60

Post by lisper » Wed, Mar 20, 2019, 9:13 PM UTC

CharlesColeman wrote: post #30

lisper wrote: post #17

> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence This is a common trope, but it's wrong in many cases. The absence of evidence for leprechauns/unicorns/bigfoot/etc. is in fact evidence of absence of these things. Likewise, the absence of evidence for gods is in fact evidence of absence of at least certain kinds of gods. In particular, it is evidence of the absence of gods that interact with the universe in certai…

>> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence > This is a common trope, but it's wrong in many cases. When you're dealing with something of low intelligence or awareness, heuristically absence of evidence can be approximated as evidence of absence, if you've made so thorough a set of observations that the probability of absence can be estimated to be very high. However, that heuristic fails when you're dealin…

You are confusing evidence with proof. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence even if the subject is intelligent. The absence of evidence for alien visitors to earth is in fact evidence of the absence of such visitors.

Now, there are some adversarial situations where absence of evidence is only weak evidence of absence. Two examples of this are the game of hide-and-seek, and steganography. There is also the invisible pink unicorn. So you can't rule out a certain class of adversarial deity just as you cannot rule out a passive one. But again, the actual deities that are the generally the subject of dispute are not adversarial.

(This, BTW, is one of the reasons that my favorite god is Loki.)