Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

How we treat religious beliefs politically is politics. How we treat religious beliefs scientifically is science.

Of course you can study religion as human behavior using science, but that say nothing about the supernatural.

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So if someone claims a supernatural explanation, science can say nothing about that because science uses a naturalistic axiom and you don't mix axioms.
To compare 2 different set of axioms you need a meta-set.
But what is the meta-set?

Now we can go useful, but there is no evidence for an universal humanity, because evolution also takes place within the human species. So your useful is limited to a limited we, just like religion.
And I have yet to see an universal axiom for useful, because that is not an axiom. That is an evaluation.

BTW You can also leave methodological naturalism and scientific evidence and start using philosophy to prove that there are no gods. It won't work, it has been tried and it fails.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It'd be prety stupid to go looking for something that's underectable.

But that's exactly what we are being asked, asked hell expected, to do, at least on an argumentative level.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course you can study religion as human behavior using science...

The scientific study of religion is not limited to studying it as human behavior. If religion makes claims of fact, those can be tested scientifically.

...but that say nothing about the supernatural.

Irrelevant.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But that's exactly what we are being asked, asked hell expected, to do, at least on an argumentative level.

Let me explain. The God of the Gap is a consequence of how knowledge works. If you place a god outside the universe and claims the god is hidden inside the universe, because the god hides from science, you got yourself an unknowable god.
That doesn't mean that there is such a god, but you can't check for it using science.
Now since you don't like philosophy, I won't bore you with the details, but you can't prove that there is no such god.
Such a god is outside evidence, logic and reason.

Now if you believe or don't believe in such a god, that is another question.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The scientific study of religion is not limited to studying it as human behavior. If religion makes claims of fact, those can be tested scientifically.

Yes, a naturalistic claim, but not an outside the universe creator god.
Inside the naturalistic axiom you can test for gods, which doesn't hide or cheat, but you can't test a supernatural claim.

So science can only test for gods using the naturalistic axiom, but can't test a supernatural claim/belief.

Irrelevant.

That is not science. That is another axiom than the naturalistic axiom.
Or rather that irrelevance is your belief system for relevance and irrelevance.
You can show relevance within the usage of science. But you can't show that the supernatural is irrelevant using science.

You don't seem to understand the limit of the naturalistic axiom.
If we assume that the universe is naturalistic and uses the scientific method, here are the results...
Whether a belief in the supernatural is irrelevant or not can't be tested by science, because you can't observe or you don't have a scientific instrument to measure neither relevance nor irrelevance.
Neither relevance nor irrelevance are objective/observer independent in the scientific sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How we treat religious beliefs politically is politics. How we treat religious beliefs scientifically is science.

Exactly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course you can study religion as human behavior using science, but that say nothing about the supernatural.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So if someone claims a supernatural explanation, science can say nothing about that because science uses a naturalistic axiom and you don't mix axioms.
To compare 2 different set of axioms you need a meta-set.
But what is the meta-set?

Now we can go useful, but there is no evidence for an universal humanity, because evolution also takes place within the human species. So your useful is limited to a limited we, just like religion.
And I have yet to see an universal axiom for useful, because that is not an axiom. That is an evaluation.

BTW You can also leave methodological naturalism and scientific evidence and start using philosophy to prove that there are no gods. It won't work, it has been tried and it fails.

What has been tried and is in the process of getting over it is carving out some space for certain woo beliefs.

People bought into that concept there were things outside the realm of science because it made for a great avoidance method.

It becomes problematic however, when it's obvious a double standard is being used with all the other junk science, junk medicine, ghosts, whatever.

All that crap is the same. Maybe you can pretend it's OK in science to ignore god woo but the rest of the woo you get to debunk.

 

[David Mo]

Have you looked?

There are volumes of papers on the significance of god beliefs in various cultures throughout history and in pre-history.

What are you looking for, a study that says geologists looked for Péle in all the volcanoes in Hawaii and found nothing?

Of course, if there are scientific works that demonstrate that gods do not exist, they should be something similar to your parodic example, although a little more complex. There aren't. If we speak of natural sciences, that is, physics, chemistry, biology, etc., there are none. Only some scientific enquiries have dismantled the authenticity of some relics. The shroud of Turin, that of Oviedo, the bones of Joan of Arc and some more. That is not enough to speak of "overwhelming scientific evidence" against the existence of gods.
The sciences that speak of gods at most are anthropology and the history of religions. I suppose you are not opposed to us talking about them. Nor are there too many works on the subject of the existence of gods. I know some of them. Malinowski on the religion of the Trobriand Islands; Marvin Harris on the cargo cults; Mircea Eliade on shamanism. Etc. This type of studies is significant, but not from the scientific point of view, but from the western rationalism. At the most, they confirm that some religious beliefs clash with science, but this is not enough to say that the inexistence of gods has been scientifically demonstrated. These facts can be assumed without ceasing to believe that God exists.
In reality, some researches on relics has been even promoted by the Catholic Church itself, which, after the negative result, has limited itself to remove the relic, as it has done with other relics that disgust the modern rationalist mentality (an archangel Michael's pen, for example). In the line of Bolandists’ Acta, for example. Another possible answer is to assume that these cases are typical of "primitive religions", but that there are higher religions that do not need this kind of things. Another possible answer is to say that the concrete belief is false, but that it reveals a metaphysical feeling superior to science itself, expressed in the form of symbols.

At this point, the debate ceases to be scientific and refers to the theory of knowledge or the critique of metaphysics. And these are not scientific subjects, but philosophical ones. It is here that rational atheism is justified.

 

[Belz...]

What is politics, if not the collective treatment of individual values?

You're not wrong, but that doesn't change what I said. Politics is a much narrower thing than values; hence my correction.

Oh no! I can't get that image out of my mind!

Oops!

And values combined in a society is politics.

No.

 

[psionl0]

What has been tried and is in the process of getting over it is carving out some space for certain woo beliefs.

People bought into that concept there were things outside the realm of science because it made for a great avoidance method.

It becomes problematic however, when it's obvious a double standard is being used with all the other junk science, junk medicine, ghosts, whatever.

All that crap is the same. Maybe you can pretend it's OK in science to ignore god woo but the rest of the woo you get to debunk.

Actually I regard things like alternative medicine in the same way as I regard religious teachings. Most of the time it is just individuals presenting their own theories as though they were indisputable facts. Funnily enough, many unbelievers (whether it be gods or alternative medicine) are guilty of the same thing.

At the end of the day however, you can never tell if an individual actually knows what they are talking about.

/philosophy

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course, if there are scientific works that demonstrate that gods do not exist, they should be something similar to your parodic example, although a little more complex. There aren't. If we speak of natural sciences, that is, physics, chemistry, biology, etc., there are none.[snipped for aesthetics.]

You don't use what you call 'natural' science to investigate fictional stories that people pass on and adopt as god beliefs.

You have another myth to get over, the myth that so-called 'soft' sciences aren't real science.

Bottom line, you admit there is overwhelming evidence gods are human generated fiction, you just have a bizarre way of looking for 'gods are myths' evidence that you count.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually I regard things like alternative medicine in the same way as I regard religious teachings. Most of the time it is just individuals presenting their own theories as though they were indisputable facts. Funnily enough, many unbelievers (whether it be gods or alternative medicine) are guilty of the same thing.

At the end of the day however, you can never tell if an individual actually knows what they are talking about.
/philosophy

I'm not sure which 'unbelievers' you are applying that highlighted sentence to.

Using "philosophy" in this discussion is a red herring.

Are or are not gods human generated fiction? You don't need philosophy to answer that. You can choose to recognize some spiritual realm as a philosophy decision but that doesn't make god beliefs any less fictional.

 

[Thor 2]

Actually I regard things like alternative medicine in the same way as I regard religious teachings. Most of the time it is just individuals presenting their own theories as though they were indisputable facts. Funnily enough, many unbelievers (whether it be gods or alternative medicine) are guilty of the same thing.
At the end of the day however, you can never tell if an individual actually knows what they are talking about.

/philosophy

Unbelievers guilty of what exactly?

Guilty of not believing in something that cannot be supported by facts? ... Boy that is a heavy one to lay on us unbelievers.

 

[psionl0]

I'm not sure which 'unbelievers' you are applying that highlighted sentence to.

Unbelievers guilty of what exactly?

I wasn't singling out unbelievers. Almost everybody thinks that their opinion is fact. One poster here even believes that you would have to be insane to use any qualifiers when stating your opinion.

 

[David Mo]

You don't use what you call 'natural' science to investigate fictional stories that people pass on and adopt as god beliefs.

You have another myth to get over, the myth that so-called 'soft' sciences aren't real science.

Bottom line, you admit there is overwhelming evidence gods are human generated fiction, you just have a bizarre way of looking for 'gods are myths' evidence that you count.

That's right. Scientists do not usually initiate research on beliefs that their common sense and primary philosophy indicate are most likely false or impossible to investigate scientifically. That is why there is no "overwhelming scientific evidence" against them.

Soft sciences are science. In a different way that natural sciences. Its objectivity level is lower.

I don't like strong evaluative words as "overwhelming". I prefer to say there is sufficient historical evidence against the existence of the beliefs in gods. And nul historical evidence for the belief in gods. From the historical point of view this is a sufficient basis for atheism. Bizarre? I don't think so.

 

[qayak]

That's right. Scientists do not usually initiate research on beliefs that their common sense and primary philosophy indicate are most likely false or impossible to investigate scientifically. That is why there is no "overwhelming scientific evidence" against them.

Except it's not like that. Science initiated investigations into gods the second the first scientist started investigating the natural world. As science progressed claims about gods fell one after the other until there were no more claims left standing. At that point theists insisted god was real unless science could prove he wasn't. Science said "**** that! He's your god you prove he exists, all the evidence shows he is a figment of delusional minds."

And that's where we are at in the world, and in this discussion.

I

don't like strong evaluative words as "overwhelming". I prefer to say there is sufficient historical evidence against the existence of the beliefs in gods. And nul historical evidence for the belief in gods. From the historical point of view this is a sufficient basis for atheism. Bizarre? I don't think so.

If the score of Every Scientific Fact Ever Discovered - Nothing isn't overwhelming, I don't know what is. Really? A soccer score of 5 - 0 is an overwhelming victory but not science versus delusion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's right. Scientists do not usually initiate research on beliefs that their common sense and primary philosophy indicate are most likely false or impossible to investigate scientifically. That is why there is no "overwhelming scientific evidence" against them.

Soft sciences are science. In a different way that natural sciences. Its objectivity level is lower.

I don't like strong evaluative words as "overwhelming". I prefer to say there is sufficient historical evidence against the existence of the beliefs in gods. And nul historical evidence for the belief in gods. From the historical point of view this is a sufficient basis for atheism. Bizarre? I don't think so.

I'm sorry dude but a fairly large proportion of medical research is apparently what you dismiss as some sort of lessor science. I'm not going to waste time on your piss-poor understanding of how one investigates multifactorial problems that studying the human condition requires but here's a hint:

You test variables by comparing them to controls, you look at epidemiological studies to tease out rare occurrences, you can do prospective studies and random, double blind, placebo controlled studies with a no action arm to rule out artifact in your studies.

And OMG, the amount of research into anthropology, sociology, and psychology you are unaware of as evidenced by such an ignorant dismissal is unfortunate.

It would appear you speak from a position of ignorance about a number of sciences.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... If the score of Every Scientific Fact Ever Discovered - Nothing isn't overwhelming, I don't know what is. Really? A soccer score of 5 - 0 is an overwhelming victory but not science versus delusion?

The evidence is overwhelming that crustal plates on the Earth's surface move and are responsible for earthquakes and most volcanoes. The evidence for the theory of evolution topped the overwhelming scale when genetic science took off and if you don't think the evidence is overwhelming all gods are fictional creations I have to ask which gods you aren't sure of?

I use overwhelming because that's the highest level of scientific certainty there is.

 

[David Mo]

Except it's not like that. Science initiated investigations into gods the second the first scientist started investigating the natural world. As science progressed claims about gods fell one after the other until there were no more claims left standing. At that point theists insisted god was real unless science could prove he wasn't. Science said "**** that! He's your god you prove he exists, all the evidence shows he is a figment of delusional minds."

And that's where we are at in the world, and in this discussion.

I


If the score of Every Scientific Fact Ever Discovered - Nothing isn't overwhelming, I don't know what is. Really? A soccer score of 5 - 0 is an overwhelming victory but not science versus delusion?

Do you know the name of these scientists you are speaking of or are you imagining them?

 

[David Mo]

I'm sorry dude but a fairly large proportion of medical research is apparently what you dismiss as some sort of lessor science. I'm not going to waste time on your piss-poor understanding of how one investigates multifactorial problems that studying the human condition requires but here's a hint:

You test variables by comparing them to controls, you look at epidemiological studies to tease out rare occurrences, you can do prospective studies and random, double blind, placebo controlled studies with a no action arm to rule out artifact in your studies.

And OMG, the amount of research into anthropology, sociology, and psychology you are unaware of as evidenced by such an ignorant dismissal is unfortunate.

It would appear you speak from a position of ignorance about a number of sciences.

Are you saying that anthropology or medicine are as exact as physics? I think it is you which are ignorant o what science is!
It doesn't matter that you say you know a lot about science or that there were some scientists a long time ago that... Show what you know with names and quotes from scientific studies about God's existence. That's the point