Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism is incompatible with science

2,617 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

crookedspiral
Posted (edited)
Quote

Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prize-Winning Physicist Says

''Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize. Valued at just under $1.5 million, the award from the John Templeton Foundationannually recognizes an individual “who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life’s spiritual dimension.” Its past recipients include scientific luminaries such as Sir Martin Rees and Freeman Dyson, as well as religious or political leaders such as Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama.''

Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prize-winning-physicist-says/?utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=SciAm_&sf209670095=1&fbclid=IwAR2LsJLRd0ALnLIcmpvRee8pkQluOQgvQBljNNOnYSlPb977lmDtoSExGF0

Another blow to the New Atheist movement and it's claim that we live in a meaningless Universe.

Edited by crookedspiral
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

He doesn't address new atheism at all. And I can guess I know why. It shatters his fable. He is strictly referring to old atheism. Hating religion for no reason.

You are right Chrlz. He obviously mentioned Hawking and Krauss to get attention from search engines. He doesn't have the decency (or knowledge I would wager) to address their argument or show why he feels

it is inconsistent with scientific method. 

That's why the so called prize he got is for fringe claims, not science. 

Laughable. A silly old man. He does not bring integrity to science as he fantasises he does. He illustrates how to undermine it. 

Just another opinion piece. And like the OP he is talking to himself. Like where dies he address the question of a meaningless universe? He doesn't. 

What a clown. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

And so, the endless dance continues  :)  What a useless thing to spend so much time on.  Believe, don't believe.  What difference does it really make in the long term?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
26 minutes ago, and then said:

And so, the endless dance continues  :)  What a useless thing to spend so much time on.  Believe, don't believe.  What difference does it really make in the long term?

To further that...

Why bother with anything at all? Why bother posting to tell people not to bother posting. Why post on subjects at all here? 

What world changes have the other sections of the forum enacted? 

The man made a dumb claim. People do that to get attention. We are only giving him what he asked for. Heck  if people say stupid things, other will say 'thats stupid' and Clockwork_Spirit, or whatever he is calling himself today will continue his bigoted view of atheism. It's just everyday life. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

What is the New Atheist Movement? 

Was there an Old Atheist Movement?

All Science really is, is a way of gaining knowledge without bias (hence the Scientific method and Science are basically the same thing and often interchangeable). If any of your belief's introduce a bias into your conclusion it's incompatible with Science. So really every belief is and isn't compatible Science depending upon the influence of said belief on your conclusion, or in other words it's the individual who may or may not be able to discern topics scientifically. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

That quote kills whatever creditability the article had.  John Templeton Foundation pays money to people who says nice things about religion.  Scientific method indeed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 hours ago, danydandan said:

What is the New Atheist Movement? 

Was there an Old Atheist Movement?

All Science really is, is a way of gaining knowledge without bias (hence the Scientific method and Science are basically the same thing and often interchangeable). If any of your belief's introduce a bias into your conclusion it's incompatible with Science. So really every belief is and isn't compatible Science depending upon the influence of said belief on your conclusion, or in other words it's the individual who may or may not be able to discern topics scientifically. 

Some say there is no difference. Personally I feel new atheism is more well supported and confronting. Militant atheist is another well used term for pretty much the same thing. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Does he happen to explain why his agnosticism isn't also 'inconsistent with the scientific method'?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
Quote

Atheism is incompatible with science

 

Yes, yes, of course it is...:blink:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Posted (edited)

Science is looking at the evidence and comming up with an answer that fits the evidence.

Atheism is not believing in a god(s) because there is not sufficient evidence.

I would say that atheism is perfectly compatible with science.

Lets face it, religion will never be scientific until such a time that testable evidence is presented and proved to be true. I'm not saying that theism is wrong, I'm saying its unproven, but trying to wrap it is a cloak of science just doesn't work. This is why most theists don't even try to do so.

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread cleaned

Enough with the derogatory personal remarks - let's keep this thread on topic please.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

I really don't see how atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. It is a lack of belief of deities. That's it, done. In what possible way does that not allow a person to practice the scientific method?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Podo said:

I really don't see how atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. It is a lack of belief of deities. That's it, done. In what possible way does that not allow a person to practice the scientific method?

Well, here's the money part of the interview, from the OP's link; the long answer is paragraphed for readability:
 

Quote

Q; Why are you against atheism?

A: 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 evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that.

This positions me very much against all of the “New Atheist” guys—even though I want my message to be respectful of people’s beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on. And I think obviously the Templeton Foundation likes all of this, because this is part of an emerging conversation. It’s not just me; it’s also my colleague the astrophysicist Adam Frank, and a bunch of others, talking more and more about the relation between science and spirituality.

I am sympathetic with @ChrLzs and aligned with some other posters so far. The answer seems incoherent to me.

Then again, for a million and a half, I'd say it, too.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

To further that...

Why bother with anything at all? Why bother posting to tell people not to bother posting. Why post on subjects at all here? 

What world changes have the other sections of the forum enacted? 

The man made a dumb claim. People do that to get attention. We are only giving him what he asked for. Heck  if people say stupid things, other will say 'thats stupid' and Clockwork_Spirit, or whatever he is calling himself today will continue his bigoted view of atheism. It's just everyday life. 

Hear, hear!!  And thanks for the tip - I hadn't realised this was actually 'Truthseeker' AKA 'Clockwork Spirit'.  I wouldn't have even bothered to check the link had I known.

I'm not a fan of chronic name changers - although there are often .. shall we say .. 'good' reasons they do it...  Good for them, at least.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

Hear, hear!!  And thanks for the tip - I hadn't realised this was actually 'Truthseeker' AKA 'Clockwork Spirit'.  I wouldn't have even bothered to check the link had I known.

I'm not a fan of chronic name changers - although there are often .. shall we say .. 'good' reasons they do it...  Good for them, at least.

I'd recognise that rhetoric anywhere I reckon ;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
8 hours ago, Podo said:

I really don't see how atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. It is a lack of belief of deities. That's it, done. In what possible way does that not allow a person to practice the scientific method?

That depends on what the word "atheism" really means.  Those who simply say they do not believe in a God, but don't have any further qualification of that to offer, are 100% compatible. Once the qualifications start, "unlikely" etc, that reverts to 0.0% compatibility. Guesser country !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Habitat said:

That depends on what the word "atheism" really means.  Those who simply say they do not believe in a God, but don't have any further qualification of that to offer, are 100% compatible. Once the qualifications start, "unlikely" etc, that reverts to 0.0% compatibility. Guesser country !

Even the guesses made along they way are not incompatible with scientific method though. But this silly person beliefs are. So the conundrum remains. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Even the guesses made along they way are not incompatible with scientific method though. But this silly person beliefs are. So the conundrum remains. 

There is nothing scientific about talking about the probability of a God. Total BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
54 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There is nothing scientific about talking about the probability of a God. Total BS

Indeed. Its a job for guessers and story tellers. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
17 hours ago, Habitat said:

That depends on what the word "atheism" really means.  Those who simply say they do not believe in a God, but don't have any further qualification of that to offer, are 100% compatible. Once the qualifications start, "unlikely" etc, that reverts to 0.0% compatibility. Guesser country !

That's...pretty bad logic. There isn't an equal chance of any given thing being real vs not being real. I can say that there's no reason to believe that a leprechaun exists without violating the scientific method, because there is no logical reason to think that a leprechaun exists. The same can easily be said for any given deity, since there's about as much evidence for that as there is for leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or Spiderman. Or whathaveyou. The existence or nonexistence of deities is on par with any other fantastic claim: show us the evidence, give a REASON for the idea to be considered. So far, there is nothing beyond ancient storybooks.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
18 minutes ago, Podo said:

That's...pretty bad logic. There isn't an equal chance of any given thing being real vs not being real. I can say that there's no reason to believe that a leprechaun exists without violating the scientific method, because there is no logical reason to think that a leprechaun exists. The same can easily be said for any given deity, since there's about as much evidence for that as there is for leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or Spiderman. Or whathaveyou. The existence or nonexistence of deities is on par with any other fantastic claim: show us the evidence, give a REASON for the idea to be considered. So far, there is nothing beyond ancient storybooks.

No, just bad and limited thinking on your part. Anyone who has any real mental capacity for thinking on those matters, is not captive to the utter stupidity that leprechauns and comic book characters might be real, or have any value as a candidate to fill the void that is, the "riddle of existence", which is the only reason that the idea of a God still looms large. Seeing there is no logical solution either in theory or practice, clearly God is not a matter for logical dissection, so any rational assessment is impossible, and thus also, calculations of probability, based on "rational" assumptions. The smart man can see there is nothing to be said, other than admit that God is just a label given to whatever fills that aforementioned void, and leave it at that. Probability has nothing to do with the matter, hence saying "God" is unlikely, is meaningless, and unscientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Seeing there is no logical solution either in theory or practice, clearly God is not a matter for logical dissection

Religion is illogical, I'm so glad that you agree. It should definitely remain behind closed doors, then, and away from the public sphere, since illogical things have no business in society. "I don't know why we exist therefore god did it" is something best kept to oneself.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.