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

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#111

Post by jeremysmyth »

DanBC wrote: post #49
zaksoup wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is wikipedia wrong? I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#112

Post by jddj »

tivert wrote: post #110
jddj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philoso…

> If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philo…

Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#113

Post by visarga »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #102
visarga wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundam…

"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life" Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behav…

> Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'.

Whatever metaphysical perspective might turn out to be best, I think it's beyond doubt today that we are made of atoms, the same type of atoms that form non-living objects. The self replication part is obvious as well, we can observe it happening everywhere on Earth. So I don't think my conclusion is only valid in the materialist metaphysical perspective.

My view is that self replication + selection under limited resources + adaptation (learning to act) are sufficient to explain our existence. We've understood self replication and selection since Darwin, and we understand learning based on analogy and extrapolation on current day AI. We have all the pieces to finally crack this mystery, and do that with minimal axioms (Occam's razor).

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#114

Post by tivert »

jddj wrote: post #112
tivert wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a universe bubbled into existence, stars exploded and cooled and a bag of atoms were to self-organise and develop the capacity to experience its own relative concepts of pleasure and suffering over millennia, I don't think it would be irrational or illogical for that bag of atoms to seek to selfishly maximise (long-term) the former and minimise the latter, and that scales out pretty comfortably to persuing philo…

Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.

> Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.

Honestly, that just sounds like the peace of mind of a psychopath.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#115

Post by amazingman »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #109
amazingman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t address the Boolean example, either. Do you actually think the following evaluates to `true`? `(god_exists == false) == (god_exists != true)`

Yes, especially when you write it like that . I get that some people really want to make a distinction, and such a distinction can exist, I just don't think it's reflected in the texts that they claimed it is, especially given their context.

And what if `god_exists` returns something other than a bool? Another way of asking this might be: what if `god_exists` is a black box with poorly understood/defined behavior? Because that’s basically the situation we’re in.

Also consider: in the absence of theism, the word “atheist” wouldn’t mean anything at all.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#116

Post by jddj »

tivert wrote: post #114
jddj wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well.

> Ha, yeah, all of the awful shit is better this way as well. Honestly, that just sounds like the peace of mind of a psychopath.

Psychopath? That I would rather that all the terrible things in the world emerged randomly rather than being a part of some grand plan, or some supernatural game of Good Vs Evil?

I think you might be reaching for a label when you could have simply said we disagree.

Post reply on HN