The science delusion

[Roman Knight]

Anyone with the magnificent combo of abilities, observation and memory, will know that I am an atheist, but there's a problem...

There are people on this forum who decide that they, being the smartest, most "enlightened" people in the world, can "disprove" any religion in existence, and as such, laugh at the believers. What I find incredibly annoying is these people, who obviously don't understand what the scientific method is, yet are self-proclaimed experts.

Before I end my rant by responding to the later posts that will hopefully appear, I pose a question. How do you know/can you prove that next time you drop a pencil it won't fall up?

[Ummon]

Putting myself in an atheist perspective, which I can do.

Nobody knows, science is a good tool, perhaps religion is too?

The good advice is, see the world from many points of view. You learn more, you can do more useful stuff.

[Mithie]

I pose a question. How do you know/can you prove that next time you drop a pencil it won't fall up?

Because that prediction is consistent with the principles of the observable reality.

[Kiljaden]

No one who realizes what the word "proof" means would ever suggest that science proves anything. The Scientific Method combined with the peer-review process provides a method to achieve demonstrations for detailed explanations for known facts beyond any reasonable doubt.

For those of you that don't know, the word "proof" can only be used in mathematics, though it is abused in common discourse. Much like the word "theory" is abused on common discourse, but when referring to a formal Scientific Theory, the distinction must be made that the Theory is the graduation point of science, there is no better way to describe the efficacy and demonstrability of your explanation of natural phenomena.

Having made these semantic distinctions, I personally positively assert that gods do not exist based on logical reasoning and objective observation. I do not positively assert that I "know" or am "certain" that gods do not exist, of course.

In regards to religion, it is possible to demonstrate that religions are false as soon as you can get rid of this "faith" nonsense, which is the singular defense that believers have against reason and logic.

[Roman Knight]

Putting myself in an atheist perspective, which I can do.

Nobody knows, science is a good tool, perhaps religion is too?

The good advice is, see the world from many points of view. You learn more, you can do more useful stuff.

No you're not in an atheist perspective, what I'm trying to say is to accept ignorance, not assume there must be another way to know.

[Justice and Mercy]

How do you know/can you prove that next time you drop a pencil it won't fall up?

Because stuff that falls falls down on Earth.

Duh. Even three year olds know that.

[Ummon]

No you're not in an atheist perspective, what I'm trying to say is to accept ignorance, not assume there must be another way to know.

The admission of ignorance leads by necessity to openmindedness, if it is not an excuse for arrogance. In openmindedness, all possibilities are the same, including the possibility that there are alternative ways to gain partial knowledge.

Whenever one is sure of anything, there lies a problem. Doubt is in terms of thought, the best position on everything.

[Djûn]

I'm an agnostic myself and I completely agree with Roman Knight's OP. There is nothing to confirm that the sun will 'rise' every day, its just an almost certain bet. Just like it is nigh on impossible to show that the laws of physics have remained constant since the beginning of the Universe.

We simply must accept these things are a certainty for as far as we can use them in application, for doing anything else would grind thinking to an near-standstill.

[Jams79]

It always grates in my head when a scientist proclaims an absolute - never, always, universal law etc...

[Hand of Nergal]

Agreed, scientists cannot possibly know everything, there is much that they dont know, and in a sense, for a long time, I was obsessed with science and it became my religion. However, science cannot answer all of our questions, there is much that we cant see, and much confusion.
The beauty of science is that its laws are not based on opinions or faith or any it that, it makes assumptions based on evidence, proving itself, justifying itself. Anyone using similar experiments will arrive at the same conclusions, so it is in fact the only 'universal' thing in the universe.

For those things that science cannot answer, I pray to the gods for the wisdom to understand, and resort to the ancient art (and science) of magic

[Broken Pope]

I don't claim to know for certain there is no God. I don't claim to know for certain the pencil will not fall up. I simply know the probability for God's existence and the unexpected buoyancy (in air) of a wood / graphite artefact to be roughly equivalent.

[Ummon]

Incorrect.

1) probability of God, undetermined.
2) probability of the event you mention, very very low.

Uncomparable.

Same old atheist mistake.

[Bovril]

What I find incredibly annoying is these people, who obviously don't understand what the scientific method is, yet are self-proclaimed experts.

That's big talk right there. In order to not look a bit silly you're going to have to show that you have at least a basic understanding of what philosophers/sociologists/historians of science actually think science is. You'll also have to contextualise that in a basic theory of knowlege. From the little you've said so far, I'm guessing that your idea of scientific method is a sort of despairing intuitive falsificationism, and your theory of knowlege is probably not something you've really thought about. I hope to be proved wrong, but I don't expect to be.

P.S. This is a pompous post, but you set the precedent.

[Jams79]

Incorrect.

1) probability of God, undetermined.
2) probability of the event you mention, very very low.

Uncomparable.

Same old atheist mistake.

According to science a premise without evidence most likely leads to a negative - No evidence for or against God means likely option is no God

[Ummon]

Not true. In science, God is an unnecessary hypothesis, just like Laplace said. But on the other hand, science is not truth. It is a model of reality, and a method to discover useful things.

[Bovril]

According to science a premise without evidence most likely leads to a negative - No evidence for or against God means likely option is no God

Whether God exists or not really has nothing to do with science. Science only deals with physical units and their effect upon each other. God's existence or lack there of simply has nothing to do with that way of thinking about the world. You might as well try to use literary criticism to work out how to build a bridge.

[Chaigidel]

when you place god in opposition to what is discovered you place it in opposition of your God given ability to reason-- God does not break the law it set down, you should revere science as the greatest thing that God ever gave you, a tree outside of the garden, open for knowledge, to discover a way back to eden with the power of reason.

[PacSubCom]

Anyone with the magnificent combo of abilities, observation and memory, will know that I am an atheist, but there's a problem...

There are people on this forum who decide that they, being the smartest, most "enlightened" people in the world, can "disprove" any religion in existence, and as such, laugh at the believers. What I find incredibly annoying is these people, who obviously don't understand what the scientific method is, yet are self-proclaimed experts.

Special pleading.

You can also not prove that after death we will not rejoin the carebears in Caralot. Didn't you know? It is written!

[Thanatos]

Science deals with Cosmic Process. Religion deals with Comic Purpose.

[Bovril]

Science deals with Cosmic Process. Religion deals with Comic Purpose.

I think religion make ontological as well as epistemological claims, but not necessarily in the same sphere as science.