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

3,248 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat
8 minutes ago, Podo said:

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.

That is why religion exists, because reason and logic cannot answer the "riddle of existence". That fact is quite important in society, because the smooth functioning of the psyche requires there be a "something" rather than a "nothing" in that gap, no matter how inadequate that gap-filler be. Those of your bent may fill the gap with fantasies that science will one day fill that gap, others fill it with fantasies of religious flavours. Others "solve" the problem by addictions, or displacement though busyness and engagement in the world. Some are seemingly dumb enough to think there is no gap. Ignorance for them, may be bliss !

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That is why religion exists, because reason and logic cannot answer the "riddle of existence". That fact is quite important in society, because the smooth functioning of the psyche requires there be a "something" rather than a "nothing" in that gap, no matter how inadequate that gap-filler be. Those of your bent may fill the gap with fantasies that science will one day fill that gap, others fill it with fantasies of religious flavours. Others "solve" the problem by addictions, or displacement though busyness and engagement in the world. Some are seemingly dumb enough to think there is no gap. Ignorance for them, may be bliss !

Just because you can't handle an empty gap doesn't mean that others cannot. An honest "we don't know yet" is better than any level of mythology.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

An honest "we don't know yet" is better than any level of mythology.

We don't know that, and you appear to imply that a rational "solution" is possible, you are in the game of assigning probabilities, I think it the last word in arrogance to be assigning a probability to a proposition that can't even, in principle, be defined. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 hours ago, Habitat said:

We don't know that, and you appear to imply that a rational "solution" is possible, you are in the game of assigning probabilities, I think it the last word in arrogance to be assigning a probability to a proposition that can't even, in principle, be defined. 

I've asked on another occasion, but I don't recall you providing an answer. 

Why do you feel that virtual particles will fail to solve the riddle of existence? 

And

Why do you feel M Theory is doomed to fail? 

Share this post


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

I've asked on another occasion, but I don't recall you providing an answer. 

Why do you feel that virtual particles will fail to solve the riddle of existence? 

And

Why do you feel M Theory is doomed to fail? 

Will these things need a point of reference that involves already known physics ?  If so, they would similarly fail to supply the answer, as have all other "new" discoveries of the past.

Share this post


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

Will these things need a point of reference that involves already known physics ?  If so, they would similarly fail to supply the answer, as have all other "new" discoveries of the past.

But they show great promise at providing those very answers. 

Just like the Higgs was theorised to provide the answer to the existence of matter itself. And we found it. Took decades, but we got there. 

Again  why are these promising well supported avenues doomed to fail? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Will these things need a point of reference that involves already known physics ?  If so, they would similarly fail to supply the answer, as have all other "new" discoveries of the past.

Not really, Hab.

Quantum Mechanics/Physics was/is a brand new discovery/discoveries that often contradict classical physics. 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Habitat said:

That is why religion exists, because reason and logic cannot answer the "riddle of existence".

What is this claim based on? Not the claim that reason and logic can't explain existence, but the claim that this is the reason for the existence of religion

As there are explanations for religion and its evolution by academics that don't really say this. In fact there are many religious people, even some on this forum apparently, who are religious for no other reason than (claimed) direct experience with god. So what are you basing this claim on?

Or are you guessing lol?

Quote

That fact is quite important in society, because the smooth functioning of the psyche requires there be a "something" rather than a "nothing" in that gap, no matter how inadequate that gap-filler be. 

Is it really that important in society? Never knew that. No doubt you can also back that?

Surely you would also have something substantial for the many millions of people who feel happy enough having "nothing" in that gap, but in reality have a non smoothly functioning psyche because of it. To point out to them that this really is so. They might be surprised by that.

Surely, being a non guesser and all that?

Edited by Horta
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
11 minutes ago, Horta said:

Is it really that important in society? Never knew that. No doubt you can also back that?

Clearly it is, hence religion continues to thrive today.   Humans have an innate need for everything to "make sense" and when it doesn't, they invent entities to fill the gap.  Now, whether they will continue to thrive if/when we finally discover the rational explanation for everything, remains to be seen.    

The worry, of course, is that for some the religion itself becomes more important that the reason for the religion - which gets largely forgotten - and that can then lead to militancy in the face of rational explanations, when they emerge.   Hence, for example, the continued opposition to the theory of evolution.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

I think we need to establish when rituals become religion, and if there really is any difference? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
3 minutes ago, Essan said:

Clearly it is, hence religion continues to thrive today.   Humans have an innate need for everything to "make sense" and when it doesn't, they invent entities to fill the gap.  Now, whether they will continue to thrive if/when we finally discover the rational explanation for everything, remains to be seen.    

The worry, of course, is that for some the religion itself becomes more important that the reason for the religion - which gets largely forgotten - and that can then lead to militancy in the face of rational explanations, when they emerge.   Hence, for example, the continued opposition to the theory of evolution.
 

Fair enough, I can accept that as a reasonable opinion and I'm not saying it is wrong.

I'm really just giving Habitat a bit of a light hearted wind up as re his mantra of "guesser". As without something to back it up it could also be construed as a guess. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I think we need to establish when rituals become religion, and if there really is any difference? 

I think first we need to define religion, and what would constitute being religious, which isn't as easy as it would appear. 

There's plenty of leeway it seems, hence some of the bogus "academic" studies often thrown around here lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
20 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I think we need to establish when rituals become religion,

 

Do you mean like when the ritual of elevating science to something over everything else, becomes worshipped as if it was God?

 

Quote

and if there really is any difference? 

 

Yes there's a difference. A big difference. 

One is based on the love for God and love for all other persons no matter what, while the other is based on hatred of God and anyone else who loves him. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

Science is not in opposition to God because the scientific method works to reveal and clarify God's truths and laws.

Atheism is incompatible with science when it takes an antagonistic attitude towards God, based on what science discovers and reveals.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
4 minutes ago, Will Due said:

One is based on the love for God and love for all other persons no matter what, while the other is based on hatred of God and anyone else who loves him. 

Strange thing to say Will. Do you really believe that, or are you just venting a bit?

Quote

Do you mean like when the ritual of elevating science to something over everything else, becomes worshipped as if it was God?

What in science would you consider to be a ritual in any religious sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)

 

Science clears up the the erroneous ideas about God that are a part of all religions, while atheism is incompatible with science when it goes too far in claiming that science proves that God doesn't exist. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Science is not in opposition to God because the scientific method works to reveal and clarify God's truths and laws.

God is simply irrelevant to science at this stage. The rest is your personal belief.

Quote

Atheism is incompatible with science when it takes an antagonistic attitude towards God, based on what science discovers and reveals.

Atheism seems far more incompatible with god than science lol.

Science doesn't take any position on god. Lots of people who are scientists don't believe in god however. Not all though, some very good scientists believe in god, they don't let their personal beliefs bias their work though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Science clears up the the erroneous ideas about God that are a part of all religions, while atheism is incompatible with science when it goes too far in claiming that science proves that God doesn't exist. 

 

 

I doubt that science will ever do that. Also, science doesn't really "prove" anything. It always leaves the possibility that it's explanations could be wrong. I think your getting the wrong idea about science will.

Atheism doesn't claim gods don't exist. I'm an atheist and I don't claim that. I do claim that by any reasonable standard of knowledge, the god's as portrayed in the popular religious myths don't exist though. The claims haven't fared well scientifically. I consider that antitheism rather than atheism though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
5 minutes ago, Horta said:

What in science would you consider to be a ritual in any religious sense?

 

Religious ritual is practiced by individuals to gain favor from the gods. It's basically a selfish practice of self-deception based on the erroneous religious ideas that scientific discovery dispells.

This same self-deceptive ritual is practiced by atheists when they embrace the erroneous attitude that science proves there is no God.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
10 minutes ago, Horta said:

some very good scientists believe in god, they don't let their personal beliefs bias their work though.

 

Do you think the same can be said about scientists who are atheists?

That they don't let their personal beliefs bias their work?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

This same self-deceptive ritual is practiced by atheists when they embrace the erroneous attitude that science proves there is no God.

Science has dispelled many claims made about god. Atheists often see that as supporting their stance, because really, it does.

While they don't believe god exists, I know of no atheist who believes that a god couldn't exist. Who knows? That depends how you define god really.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Do you think the same can be said about scientists who are atheists?

That they don't let their personal beliefs bias their work?

Yes.

It's a bit of a mute point though, as God simply isn't relevant to science as yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Horta said:

as God simply isn't relevant to science as yet.

 

But he will be eventually. Because science is extremely relevant to God.

In the timeline of all human existence, science and its discoveries are just getting started.

Eventually, science will cleanse all superstition and erroneous ideas from religion, while the results of true personal religious or spiritual experience will eventually cleanse all personal tendencies to approach scientific discovery as a method to eliminate God from life.

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

But he will be eventually. Because science is extremely relevant to God.

In the timeline of all human existence, science and its discoveries are just getting started.

Eventually, science will cleanse all superstition and erroneous ideas from religion, while true religious or spiritual experience will cleanse all tendencies to approach scientific discovery as a method to eliminate God from life.

 

 

Maybe. I guess by that time there will be no atheists.

At the moment though, I don't think atheism is an unreasonable stance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

But he will be eventually. Because science is extremely relevant to God.

In the timeline of all human existence, science and its discoveries are just getting started.

Eventually, science will cleanse all superstition and erroneous ideas from religion, while the results of true personal religious or spiritual experience will eventually cleanse all personal tendencies to approach scientific discovery as a method to eliminate God from life.

 

 

Science has nothing to do with belief's, simple as that. 

God, God's, political stances, morality..... whatever. All Science is interested in is unbiased knowledge.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

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.