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

3,143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Will Due
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Horta said:

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

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

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, I feel that if a person has happened to have experienced religious indoctrination as a child and has not evolved at least to a certain degree "atheistically" true spiritual growth is likely to be on hold.

But in my opinion, it is highly unreasonable to go from one extreme to another.

Always is everything best when taken in moderation. It's in the average where all things are best. The inbetween. That's been my experience. 

 

 

Edited by Will Due
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 hours ago, Horta said:

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

The person claiming that personal experience with a God, also says he is not an adherent of religions, or even believe in an afterlife, which would make him a real outlier. If anyone could give a plausible rational explanation of "creation" ( that's what you see when you draw the curtains in the morning), religion with its attendant mysteries would be out of business. It is the Creation Myth industry, something to make sense of existence, and not unnaturally for mortal beings, the implications of the matter of "existence", for them. Sure there is a social aspect to people gathering together in houses of religion, but a lot of that is connected to being a "common interest group". Take away the mystery, and it all collapses.

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?

I wouldn't say they have nothing in that "gap", because it certainly is a gap for anyone with any intelligent apprehension of the world, I have pointed out that all the gap-fillers are ineffective, ultimately, looked at rationally, but religious belief, which is one such filler, provides a comfort for many, with its elaborate architecture of rituals and mysteries. For those not satisfied by that, there are the distractions of "the World", which have never been so abundant as today, but when that wears off, many do turn to religion, particularly in later life, when mortality becomes even more obvious. It is the knowledge of their mortality, that drives people to find more meaning in life. You can only go so far in distracting oneself from these matters, with displacement behaviours, and to my mind revelling in the idea that you are a hard-nosed rational thinker, well apprised with how reality "works", and aloof from such things, is just another kind of displacement, the gap still remains. It is just a matter of how we fill it.  This all seems like a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, but at the heart of all the great religions, is a mystical tradition that offers the hope to the beleaguered, to close that Great Gap. Only he who is through with all the other distractions, and I include in that the distraction of organized religion, will venture there.

 

Share this post


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

Not really, Hab.

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

I really don't think so, this is just finding more pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, expanding the picture it provides, it does not clue us in to why we have a jigsaw puzzle to be working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
2 hours ago, Habitat said:


The person claiming that personal experience with a God, also says he is not an adherent of religions, or even believe in an afterlife, which would make him a real outlier. If anyone could give a plausible rational explanation of "creation" ( that's what you see when you draw the curtains in the morning), religion with its attendant mysteries would be out of business. It is the Creation Myth industry, something to make sense of existence, and not unnaturally for mortal beings, the implications of the matter of "existence", for them. Sure there is a social aspect to people gathering together in houses of religion, but a lot of that is connected to being a "common interest group". Take away the mystery, and it all collapses.

I wouldn't say they have nothing in that "gap", because it certainly is a gap for anyone with any intelligent apprehension of the world, I have pointed out that allthe gap-fillers are ineffective, ultimately, looked at rationally, but religious belief, which is one such filler, provides a comfort for many, with its elaborate architecture of rituals and mysteries. For those not satisfied by that, there are the distractions of "the World", which have never been so abundant as today, but when that wears off, many do turn to religion, particularly in later life, when mortality becomes even more obvious. It is the knowledge of their mortality, that drives people to find more meaning in life. You can only go so far in distracting oneself from these matters, with displacement behaviours, and to my mind revelling in the idea that you are a hard-nosed rational thinker, well apprised with how reality "works", and aloof from such things, is just another kind of displacement, the gap still remains. It is just a matter of how we fill it.  This all seems like a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, but at the heart of all the great religions, is a mystical tradition that offers the hope to the beleaguered, to close that Great Gap. Only he who is through with all the other distractions, and I include in that the distraction of organized religion, will venture there.

Lol. Thought so.

Elvis could have made a song about that..."there's a whole lotta guessin' goin' on".....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Lol. Thought so.

Elvis could have made a song about that..."there's a whole lotta guessin' goin' on".....

All your response needs is a "like" from 8 bits or 3 eyes to confirm the worthlessness of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
6 hours ago, Habitat said:

I really don't think so, this is just finding more pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, expanding the picture it provides, it does not clue us in to why we have a jigsaw puzzle to be working on.

I do think so. Literally nothing like the uncertainty principal or using statistical analysis to determine validity of observations was ever done in classical physics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

using statistical analysis to determine validity of observations

Sounds very run of the mill.

Share this post


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

Sounds very run of the mill.

It is now, wasn't in the 1920s. 

Read up on Einstein, Bohr and their debates. Or on Planck, Sommerfeld etcetera. The whole thing about Quantum Mechanics is that it was a new start to Physics. 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
On ‎23‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 10:06 AM, 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. 

Has the irrational ever yielded accurate solutions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
13 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Has the irrational ever yielded accurate solutions?

It depends what you'd call irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

It depends what you'd call irrational.

The opposite of rational.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta
12 hours ago, Habitat said:

All your response needs is a "like" from 8 bits or 3 eyes to confirm the worthlessness of it.

The worthlessness was repayment in kind for the colourful waffle. At least I was brief.

You've rabbited on for a couple of paragraphs avoiding what was asked ie. if you could back it up (more guesses don't amount to backing it up), when really a simple "nah, can't back it up, they're just guesses" would have sufficed.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Horta

I think religion persists not only because of indoctrination (which plays a part), but because humans are inherently irrational and excel at deceiving themselves. There is much about religious belief that mimics other psychological conditions and at the more extreme end it begins to look like a psychosis. In the end it's simply another unlikely paranormal belief.

I also think my guess (which can at least be be supported to some extent via behavioural and cognitive sciences) is better and far more informed than your guesses,  that are biased from strong belief in paranormal thingies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I think religion persists not only because of indoctrination (which plays a part), but because humans are inherently irrational and excel at deceiving themselves. There is much about religious belief that mimics other psychological conditions and at the more extreme end it begins to look like a psychosis. In the end it's simply another unlikely paranormal belief.

I also think my guess (which can at least be be supported to some extent via behavioural and cognitive sciences) is better and far more informed than your guesses,  that are biased from strong belief in paranormal thingies.

You think I'm guessing, but I'm not. Did I not know what I do know, and know for certain, I would not have ventured to guess one way or the other, or seen the need to, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Fellow states that not believing in something because it lacks evidence is counter to science. In strictly hard interpretation of science you would have to stick to a very agnostic approach to leprechauns and pixies. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 3/24/2019 at 1:17 AM, 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.
 

Religion thrives in spite of itself though, many leave the god path to find the happy medium in spirituality and I strongly suspect that most of these instances are driven by the irrational and false claims made in the Bible, and the instances of 11th century thinking. 

Its clearly redundant, but a security blanket to a great many. As such I don't see that it is important anymore, how it has shaped thinking over the last couple of centuries has just had an impact that we struggle to overcome. It's now important to move past it. It's a hand brake on progress 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

It's funny that some people here completely dismiss the opinion of a respected theoritical physicist, specialized in cosmology and higher energy physics, complexity theory, an astrobiology when it does not support atheism. It's like what some religious people do, when their beliefs are challenged.

Edited by crookedspiral
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 3/24/2019 at 1:50 AM, Will Due said:

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

That's such a childish inaccurate passive aggressive statement. 

Can you show who worships science? 

Nobody does as far as I know. What's an alter or prayer to scoe ce sound or look like? 

How about some examples to support your veiled ad hom? 

On 3/24/2019 at 1:50 AM, Will Due said:

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. 

One does not have to hate God to recognise that God is a human creation. Your going to extremes again to get attention. You should grow up a bit. Most of the avid believers like yourself seem to do that a lot. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 3/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, Will Due said:

Science is not in opposition to God 

Yes it is. It might not care about the overall God question, because its just a mental construct and there is nothing to investigate or observe, but has shown past claims attributed to creator gods are false, it has shown the efficacy of prayer to be false and it has rationalised those tall tales. 

On 3/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, Will Due said:

because the scientific method works to reveal and clarify God's truths and laws.

No it doesn't, science erodes the claims attributes to gods. Where has it ever supported God ideas? 

On 3/24/2019 at 2:13 AM, Will Due said:

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

No its not, you can wish for that all your life. It won't happen. Science does not support religion. As time wears on, science continues to errode religion. 

Your making ridiculous claims again with no support of your personal statements. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 3/24/2019 at 2:19 AM, 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. 

Science has nothing to work with. God is a human idea. Atheism is not incompatible with science. It's the default. There is nothing in nature to suggest a god exists. That's an idea purely restricted to people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 3/24/2019 at 3:06 AM, Will Due said:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, I feel that if a person has happened to have experienced religious indoctrination as a child and has not evolved at least to a certain degree "atheistically" true spiritual growth is likely to be on hold.

How do you figure atheism leads to a spiritual outlook? It doesn't. 

On 3/24/2019 at 3:06 AM, Will Due said:

But in my opinion, it is highly unreasonable to go from one extreme to another.

For what reason other than your somewhat fanatical view of religion? 

On 3/24/2019 at 3:06 AM, Will Due said:

Always is everything best when taken in moderation. It's in the average where all things are best. The inbetween. That's been my experience. 

You don't show it here. Nothing about your preaching is moderate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 3/24/2019 at 9:12 AM, Habitat said:

I really don't think so, this is just finding more pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, expanding the picture it provides, it does not clue us in to why we have a jigsaw puzzle to be working on.

But why are those promising avenues doomed to fail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
56 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

It's funny that some people here completely dismiss the opinion of a respected theoritical physicist, specialized in cosmology and higher energy physics, complexity theory, an astrobiology when it does not support atheism. It's like what some religious people do, when their beliefs are challenged.

Look at how many physicists your dismissing to champion the opinion of one retired old man. 

Why? Because its what you want to hear. 

Its even funnier when you illustrate that you haven't any idea what the word irony means 

Share this post


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

But why are those promising avenues doomed to fail? 

I would say it is basically just adding finer detail to the existing picture. Which is obviously extremely interesting and important work, or Billions would not have been invested in particle accelerators and the like. I'd say the main driver is technology, though, not "God" problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 22/03/2019 at 7:13 AM, eight bits said:

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

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.

For me it is very simple, rather than incoherent  

He sees agnosticism as the correct starting  point for science.

If you  go into any scientific investigation with a bias, this will affect  the outcomes of the experiment;  so (in testing for god) a scientist should begin from a neutral position

I don't know if that is how science actually works today,  but once upon a time,  we were taught that it  is how it SHOULD work 

  • Like 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.