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

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#91

Post by hota_mazi »

lorriman wrote: post #73
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…

Atheism has a long history of redefining terms. The OED changed from "To deny the Gods/God" to "To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God" The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions a…

> -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god

Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#92

Post by gamblor956 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #43
gamblor956 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method.

This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with the scientific method, since agnostics merely posit that they don't know whether or not God exists. Some couch it in language like "there's no evidence" but not all agnostics base their skepticism on a reason consistent with the scientific method.

TLDR: Theists believe "God." Atheists believe "no God." Agnostics don't have a belief either way. This is not pedantry, it's a fundamental difference in belief systems.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#94

Post by hurryskurry »

rdruxn wrote: post #20
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 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…

Actually, not forming a belief in something, i.e., not positing the existence of an entity without evidence is a sound practice. And that is actually exactly what we do in science.

E.g., Russell's teapot

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

gamblor956 wrote: post #92
VikingCoder wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method. This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with…

> Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Atheism is the absence of the belief that there is a God. “Strong” or “hard" atheism is the belief that there is no God. (Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or not of God is either unknown or unknowable, it is, in either form, compatible with theism, atheism, and strong atheism, since belief in a position is not equivalent to belief that that belief is knowledge or that the subject of that belief is knowable.)

> It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation.

Its the absence of belief in a thing in which belief cannot be justified by science, it is not merely compatible with science but the only position possible within a scientific framework.

Strong atheism is also compatible with science. (As are both forms of agnosticism.)

Assuming God was a testable hypothesis (which it is, to all analysis to date, not even in principle), a non-contingent atheism—a nonbelief or negative belief in God immune to review based on subsequent evidence—would be inconsistent with science, but then that's an apparently counterfactual assumption and not even clearly a common form of atheism.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#96

Post by gotocake »

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.

The OED and M-W both disagree with whichever dictionary you’re using.

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

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

You also seem to be strafing your dictionary claim and then ignoring anyone who shows that you’re incorrect. That’s a poor way to debate.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#97

Post by senectus1 »

I'm amazed and more than a little disappointed at how many of us dont understand the difference between "I dont believe there is a god" and "I dont believe your claim of a god".

Atheism is pure science. Its viewed a hypothesis, looked at the evidence, found it wanting and dismissed the Hypothesis. For every single claim.

The moment an Atheist finds some evidence to be even slightly compelling they become agnostic until enough evidence compels them to believe (Theist) or they discover better evidence to dismiss the previously compelling evidence (back to Atheist).

That's it.

Its incorrect to claim an atheist claims that a god doesn't exist. they just analyse and accept or reject a claim that one does exist.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#98

Post by lorriman »

hota_mazi wrote: post #91
lorriman wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Atheism has a long history of redefining terms. The OED changed from "To deny the Gods/God" to "To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God" The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions a…

> -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?

>Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?

I addressed that in what I wrote.

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#99

Post by amazingman »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #86
Latty wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't walk around expecting gravity to suddenly change, or for elephants to suddenly appear around us. We are not talking about real probability - we are talking about an unfalsifiable thing having no evidence, which is functionally the same thing as proving it false, we can't prove it false, but we act like it is, because doing otherwise would mean acting like anything insane and unfalsifiable you can think of is…

Even taking that perspective, the definitions are still semantically equivalent. > You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions. I never did that.

You didn’t address the Boolean example, either. Do you actually think the following evaluates to `true`?

`(god_exists == false) == (god_exists != true)`

Re: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method

#100

Post by VikingCoder »

gamblor956 wrote: post #92
VikingCoder wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not accurate for you to then say "atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method." Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation. Ergo, atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method in the same way that theism is inconsistent with the scientific method. This is not to say that agnosticism is consistent with…

In the contexts I care about, this absolutely is pedantry.

If I as a layman make the assertion, "I am an atheist," and a perfect scientist asks you to translate my statement into an expression compatible with the scientific method, that he could understand, you could do it.

Here, let me try: "VikingCoder is not convinced there is evidence that proves the existence of a being which created the universe."

Feel free to make your own translation, if you are dissatisfied with mine.

And if it turns out that you do not believe there's any difference between the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism and atheism, THAT'S FINE BY ME.

I believe there is a scientifically literate explanation for atheism which differs from the scientifically literate explanation for agnosticism.

Because we're humans. We are allowed to express opinions. That doesn't mean we have abandoned the scientific method.

I'm allowed to have thought, "I believe we will find the Higgs boson."

I'm allowed to think, "I believe I will never be convinced of the existence of God."

> It's a belief, and can't be proven or disproven by known methods of experimentation or observation.

My atheism absolutely could be disproven by observation. I'd be delighted to go in to listing observations that would disprove my atheism, if you care.

(I think you probably shouldn't have used "or observation" in that statement, if you wanted to be harder on me.)

Post reply on HN