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

61–70 of 116 posts

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#61

Post by reaperducer »

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…

They need to prove that claim

No, they don't. The whole point is believe without proof. It's called "faith."

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#62

Post by krferriter »

DanBC wrote: post #44
krferriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism (2)

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

And even if an atheist holds the position that a god does not exist, based on our current evidence, this is the default null hypothesis, and this rejection of the claim that a god does exist does not require a proof. The assertion that a god exists requires proof. The author's insistence that atheists who simply default to the null hypothesis in the question of whether a god exists need to provide evidence is the one violating the scientific method.

If someone tells the author that BBQ pork sandwiches cure cancer does he just accept it as true until someone proves that they don't cure cancer?

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#63

Post by CharlesColeman »

rgbrenner wrote: post #53
DanBC wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>> Atheism: The belief that there is no god.

> 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

Allowing for the differences in word-form (ideology vs. adherent), those definitions are semantically identical. They just attach the negation to different parts of the sentence for the same effect (the noun in the first case, the verb in the second).

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#64

Post by malms »

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…

> Atheism is a single position on a single claim. The claim is "There is a god", and the position is "I don't accept that claim".

Thats agnosticism.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#65

Post by rgbrenner »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #63
rgbrenner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> Atheism: The belief that there is no god. > 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 Allowing for the differences in word-form (ideology vs. adherent), those definitions are semantically identical. They just attach the negation to different parts of the sentence for the same effect (the noun i…

No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not.

A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim.

This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#66

Post by CharlesColeman »

rgbrenner wrote: post #65
CharlesColeman wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Atheism: The belief that there is no god. > 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 Allowing for the differences in word-form (ideology vs. adherent), those definitions are semantically identical. They just attach the negation to different parts of the sentence for the same effect (the noun i…

No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not. A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim. This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

> This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f.

You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you oppose, as that one clearly has some traction.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#67

Post by groestl »

hota_mazi wrote: post #18
reaperducer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding from theology classes a long, long time ago is as follows: - Atheist: Believes there is no God. - Agnostic: Doesn't know/isn't sure/doesn't care if there is a God. - Anti-theist: Is against the mere idea that there is a God. That may have changed in the intervening decades, and with the rise of the internet, the term "atheist" seems to have changed in popular culture, often to suit a particular perso…

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…

There is a difference between rejecting a claim and not accepting a claim, yet you use both expressions to describe the position of an atheist. Which one is it?

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#68

Post by rgbrenner »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #66
rgbrenner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not. A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim. This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

> This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers) The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f. You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you opp…

A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing.

Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#69

Post by Latty »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #66
rgbrenner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not. A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim. This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

> This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers) The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f. You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you opp…

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic.

"god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#70

Post by Eleopteryx »

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.

Asserting that something doesn't exist, when there's no compelling evidence that thing exists, is arguably the antithesis of a factual assertion. Claiming that god doesn't exist isn't asserting a greater truth about the nature of the universe, it's the linguistic cancelation of an unsupported, invented concept. Without the concept of god in place first, "God doesn't exist", doesn't exist, it doesn't have to.

That is to say, in practical terms, consciously choosing to not believe in something is the same as not having any concept of that thing to begin with.

Post reply on HN