Charles Darwin

And are all phenomena explainable via science?

reprise

WIll you make up your mind what the hell your topic is. You asked a question about whether atheism entails religious beliefs. You then try to tell those people who ARE atheists that they must have an alternative explanation for existence if they reject the notion of a supreme being, thus arguing against claim which you - and not atheists - made in the first place (nice strawman).

Now, you are asking whether all phenomena can be explained by science. If your question is whether science itself has the characteristics of a religion, then for f**k's sake ask THAT question. Don't just blithely assume that all those people who do not believe in a deity or deities subscribe to ANY other specific explanation for existence, let alone a scientific one.

I'm wondering why this thread hasn't been moved to "elsewhere" - it's staring to seem like that's where it should have been started.

Kevin Dorner

Definitely... I have tremendous faith that eventually a moderator will notice that this thread is off-topic for this forum and move it to EoG or MRD, or even Elsewhere.

None other than that, thanks.

I think I can assume you ascribe to Christianity as I have yet to see anyone from another religion use the argument that not believing in god is a "faith" in and of itself.

You probably don't have any belief in Shiva. By your argument it takes faith to deny Shiva without proof. You are not only a Christian but also an Ashivaist.

You probably also deny Zeus, who is also said to have been the "leader" god of his pantheon. Clearly, it takes faith to deny the necesssity of Zeus and see His hand in all things in the universe as you have. Make that Christian, Ashivaist and Azeusist.

I could go on endlessly with the thousands of gods that humanity has stuffed the skies with, but it's pointless. By accepting one, you are rejecting belief in thousands if not millions of others. Ours is no different... only one more.

Also you were incorrect about what and "agnostic" and "atheist" is but don't worry about it as almost everyone gets them wrong. An atheist simply doesn't believe in a god or gods. There is no implication of knowledge. An agnostic holds that proof or disproof of deity/ies is impossible; it cannot be known. So I am both agnostic and atheist as I don't know but I don't believe. A "strong atheist" who claims to know or have proof is the type you were referring to, but there do not seem to be as many of them.

Charles Darwin

Sorry, I had not intended to be coy. In fact, if you had answered my question then perhaps you'd have seen that it is relevant to CSS. To forestall the obvious, let me explain.

You made the statement to the effect that scientists are confident they will discover more about the BB and will be able to explain it, how it came about, etc. So I asked the question whether all phenomena are explainable by science.

I asked it because it is often the case that folks are confused about this. Many think the answer is yes, not realizing there is no justification for this, aside from making a metaphysical / religious claim.

Others may concede that there may be phenomena unexplainable by science, but they maintain that if science discovers that it has crossed the line, then it will pull back. In this case, they miss the important point that science, in fact, has no way of detecting the line and when it has crossed over. The idea that it can entails its own metaphysical assumptions.

The bottom line is that in the historical sciences you have theories being set forth and codified in textbooks and popular literature which are little more than speculation -- their level of emprical support is low and they have serious problems. Theories such as this would not even be seriously considered in the experimental sciences. The only real selling point of the theory is that is is purely mechanistic / naturalistic. An example, just off the top of my head, is the theory of how the earth-moon system arose [I'll omit the details here].

Why is this important for CSS and relevant to this thread? For the very reason that you brought it up. The sciences will provide naturalistic explanations for everything, no matter how bizarre and unlikely. They'll even explain things like consciousness and existence. Then folks like yourself can say you have science on your side and that atheism does not entail religious beliefs, and so it doesn't come under the CSS.

But in fact the scientific theory itself is laughable, and was pursued and developed under a materialistic worldview, where there must be naturalistic explanations for all things. The worldview underwrites the theory, not the empirical evidence or any solid mathematical or analytical foundation.

So when I claim atheism entails religious claims, and you say no it doesn't, we have, or we will have naturalistic explanations for these things, I urge you to test those explanations carefully. Are they really very compelling? Or are they fuelled by a metaphysical assumption from the get go?

Gawdawful

Unfortunately, maybe I do misunderstand what you are saying, but you did offer an argument I've read many times over, represented by the first phrase of this quote:
My Omnipotent Invisible Magic Woman analogy or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other of a multitude of possibilities also explain our existence, like the Pueblo and Hopi legends of man crawling up from the underworld, represented by the ladder in their ceremonial kivas. My point is that any supernatural explanation for our existence is just as valid as your contention that existence of a god explains it.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I have only made a commitment to not believe there are any god, gods, or supernatural power, creator or not, as an explanation for anything let alone why we exist. This is not the same thing as believing in something that cannot be proven, that takes faith. I contend that it takes no faith to take the position I am. I lack faith in unseen supernatural explanations for things, therefore I am atheist.

Warren in Oklahoma

Charles Darwin

I'm sorry that you think this thread is off topic. It is, of course, quite on topic if I am correct in my contention. If atheism entails a religious belief then this holds important implications for the interpretation and application of the CSS.

Your point about you, an atheist, rejecting merely one more god than a Christian fails to nullify my contention; indeed, it supports it. You equate the atheist and the Christian, saying, "Ours is no different... only one more."

But, of course, your real point there was that anyone holding belief in any god is "religious" whereas you, having rejected every single one, are free of religious beliefs.

What you seem to be missing is my point that your position, by definition, has its own built-in metaphysics which you cannot escape. Not believing in any god does not free you of metaphysics. I thank you for the helpful definitions, but even atheists who are not strong atheists, such as yourself, are embracing metaphysics. What is both intriguing and disturbing, is the denial.

Simply put, when you say you don't believe in any god, then by definition you believe that the world came about (somehow) by naturalistic means. This is a metaphysical claim. Or, tying this into the previous post, you would have to say something along the lines that you believe all phenomena are naturalistic.

Charles Darwin

This is not relevant. I'm making no contention about how the various explanations compete and compare. I merely said they provide an explanation. You are bringing up an interesting point, but that's another thread, and not relevant to CSS.


You are stating your position but not providing any justification for it. Yes, I understand you are an atheist. Your key claim above is: "This is not the same thing as believing in something that cannot be proven." This is where I need help in understanding your reasoning. Can you justify this statement? Please consider my earlier point that not believing in any god necessarily implies that you do believe in some other explanation.

If you are correct that you do not believe in something that cannot be proven, then there must be an explanation for existence that does not involve God and is provable. I am unaware of any such explanation. Can you tell me about it?

Gawdawful

I don't understand the trouble you are having in understanding me. I am saying that atheism is the default position. Atheism requires no metaphysical belief at all. It requires no belief whatsoever in anything, scientific theory or religion.
No, you have missed my point, I do not require an explanation for existence. I don't think knowledge of an explanation for existence is important, it certainly has no bearing on my atheism. I might or might not have ideas about how we came to be, but that is not important and no more proveable than the supernatural explanation. This must be a novel position to take, perhaps one borne of ignorance, but none the less, is mine. I am a bit skeptical of the Big Bang theory as well, but it at least makes more sense than an everpresent being, suddenly bored with his own existence in the empty eternity, creating something out of nothing for his own amusement, seeking, no, demanding adulation from his creations.

Warren in Oklahoma

Charles Darwin

Actually, if I'm understanding you correctly, I suspect your position isn't all that unusual. Someone earlier in this thread made the point that he is not interested in cosmology and origins. I suspect most folks aren't.

You say you don't consider the issue important and that you don't require an explanation for existence. That is all well and good, but you, nonetheless, believe there is no god. This belief brings with it some implications. Like it or not, if you believe there is no god, then you necessarily believe that existence came about via means exclusive of God. This is simply a logical fact -- it says nothing about how you personally feel about this implication. It may be utterly unimportant to you; you may not think about it much; you may never have thought about it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this is part and parcel of your belief. It is a necessary consequence of your belief that there is no God.


These are metaphysical beliefs you are expressing. This supports my contention that atheism entails such beliefs.


The belief that the world arose (somehow) via naturalistic means (no God involved) is a metaphysical belief. This is a necessary consequence of your belief there is no God. This is hardly the default position. Indeed, the notion that the universe just occurred (somehow) is rather bizarre. Would you say that about anything else? Mind you I'm not saying you are wrong, but your position is hardly obvious, and certainly not without its own metaphysics.

Toto

As far as church state separation goes, belief and non-belief are treated equally, whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion. That disposes of the only possible CS issue. The original poster is fairly confused about that and other issues.

And I notice that none of you could get a date on Saturday night. Get a night life, guys.

I'm going to kick this to <flips coin> GRD!