Do Most Atheists Know that science..... Part 2

[FireGarden]

But someone has, sort of. I posted an admittedly over-long quote upthread from Denis Dutton, of Sky and Telescope magazine. I'll just link to the source again. He makes some great points.

Critique of Jastrow's God and the Astronomers

Good find.

There's a very short thread about this here if you're interested.

Thanks.
I've commented there.

 

[DOC]

DOC asks do we understand everything about the BB. The thing is, we could ask the same. DOC -- do you understand everything about God? If not, how can you say He's responsible for creation? If so, I'm quite sure we'd all like to hear about it.

Faith is part of belief in God as creator, but so is logic. The same faith is required of an atheist or scientist who has faith that God does not exist.

But facts are also important in my belief. In my many threads I have given some of the historical facts (concerning Jesus' life and the resurrection), and scientific facts such as all time, space, and matter had a definite finite beginning. Also there is gut feeling, the teachings and ethics of Christ. There are several factors that have gone into my decision. If those factors led to a belief that God does not exist than I would be an atheist.

 

[arthwollipot]

DOC, I know you have stated that you don't respond to every post, and the reasons for your not doing so are probably good, but Fiona's post 381 raised some very good points that I'd very much like to see your response to. Would you mind terribly going back to that post and responding to it? I'd appreciate it if you would (and I'd say probably so would Fiona). Thanks.

 

[zooterkin]

Faith is part of belief in God as creator, but so is logic. The same faith is required of an atheist or scientist who has faith that God does not exist.

I don't need faith in order not to believe in something.

Exactly how much faith do you require not to believe in Santa Claus?

 

[DOC]

DOC, I know you have stated that you don't respond to every post, and the reasons for your not doing so are probably good, but Fiona's post 381 raised some very good points that I'd very much like to see your response to. Would you mind terribly going back to that post and responding to it? I'd appreciate it if you would (and I'd say probably so would Fiona). Thanks.

I'm done with the joobz thing in this thread, unless he brings it up again. Most people want to move on.

 

[joobz]

Faith is part of belief in God as creator, but so is logic. The same faith is required of an atheist or scientist who has faith that God does not exist.

this comparison is false. There is no evidence for god. As such, it isn't faith to say such a thing does not exist. Does a christian need faith to not believe in Zeus? Does a Hindu need faith to not believe in Allah?

But facts are also important in my belief. In my many threads I have given some of the historical facts (concerning Jesus' life and the resurrection),

How are you using facts here? Do you believe there is evidence for Jesus' resurrection?

and scientific facts such as all time, space, and matter had a definite finite beginning.

This has not been established. You've never answered if the universe did not exist when it was a bb singularity. Certainly the universe as we know it didn't exist, but that's not the same thing. Besides, even if time/space had a beginning in the sense you mean, that doesn't mean a creator made it. FireGarden had addressed this point.

Also there is gut feeling, the teachings and ethics of Christ.

Ethics such eternal torment for homosexuality?
Permissibility towards Slavery?
Practice of symbolic cannibalism?
And let's not forget that Christ also accepted the old testament, which means he had no problem with God's wholesale killing of children.

Certain Christ had enacted favorable ethical policies, but we have moved beyond just christ's teachings.

There are several factors that have gone into my decision. If those factors led to a belief that God does not exist than I would be an atheist.

To summarize, you have faith and confirmation bias to support your belief.

 

[joobz]

I'm done with the joobz thing in this thread, unless he brings it up again. Most people want to move on.

I'm certain that wasn't what Arthwallipot was referring to. You need to read the whole post.

Actually, Fiona directly addresses the faith in science/faith in religion argument.

Beyond this you seem to wish to show that those of us who are not scientists have faith in science, in the same way that believers have faith in their religion. This argument has been run many times and it has been answered, not very satisfactorily from my point of view. So I will give you this much: I do not understand science. I am not alone, and if that is what you wish to establish, there it is. I will go further. Scientists in one field do not always understand science in another. And I will go further yet. Scientists at the forefront of new research often do not understand the meaning of their results. We see this most clearly in social sciences (but that is another topic, perhaps) We also see it in hard science. Scientists are people, and they learn and speculate from the basis of their background. That includes a lot more knowledge of science than I will ever have; but it includes both constraints from how our brains are wired and blinds spots bequeathed by our culture. They know this and they continually try to refine their methods to minimise those influences. But when we get to the things we find hard to visualise (as in your OP, for example), they stuggle. Less than I do cos they have more practice, but yet they struggle.

All of that does not bother me because I do accept that those who pursue it do so using a method I do understand; and they reach their conclusions on the basis of carefully constructed experiments to test clearly expressed hypotheses. I accept that if I wished to do the work I could (in principle) follow the progress in any given field, and I could learn what the hypotheses were and what the crucial experiments were which led to the current understanding.

This is where it differs from faith in religion. Both have a reliance on what I will call philosophy, for now. People who are thinking about things and how they work always come up against problems they cannot yet solve. And they think about them. If they can they do things to test the ideas they have: but if there is no practical way to test something it does not stop us thinking.

Science exists as a discipline devoted to the development of the testable hypothesis. This approach has been found to work in a wide variety of fields for a wide variety of questions. Sometimes its success leads people to believe it can be applied to all fields. I do not agree with this but nothing at all hangs on it. If they are right the are right. There is no loss in pursuing that idea because we will learn from the attempt and already we have learned more than could have been dreamed of before the method was found. That is wonderful to me. And if there are limits we will learn that too. Which is enough to make me happy.

I am not sure if I am being very clear here, but the point I am trying to make is that if you prove us lay people do not understand the details of what scientists are doing you have not undercut anything substantial at all. One is either content to understand and accept the scientific method or one is not. If you are then absent outright fraud there is no requirement not to accept what experts tell us because we can always go and look for ourselves, though perhaps few of us do.

This cannot be done with religion. It is also founded on philosophy but there is no method by which the conclusions can be tested and so I, as a lay person, cannot verify those conclusion by hard work and honest research.

I think you are conflating two meanings of faith: one is trust and the other is unquestionable belief. I trust the scientific method, but I do not have unquestioned belief in scientists of their findings. I am not sure if that is any help but it is the best I can do to address what I (perhaps wrongly) take to be your goal here

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Faith is part of belief in God as creator, but so is logic. The same faith is required of an atheist or scientist who has faith that God does not exist.

Possibly true, but irrelevant. The BB theory is not a form of atheism. There are plenty of devout “God fearing” Christians who accept the theory.

And let’s remember your claim. You’re apparently not just saying science hasn’t yet explained the origin of the universe (a point on which I agree). You’re saying it can never explain the universe. This is a step too far. Unless you can offer a logical proof that the theory can never be complete (like Goedel’s incompleteness did for math), then your argument amounts to, “I personally don’t like where the theory is going; therefore, it can never get there.”

But facts are also important in my belief. In my many threads I have given some of the historical facts (concerning Jesus' life and the resurrection), and scientific facts such as all time, space, and matter had a definite finite beginning.

The entire problem I have with you, DOC, is that you’re getting basic facts wrong, and ignoring those that contradict you.

For example, science does not claim that “all time, space and matter had a definite finite beginning.” BB theory, as it stands, simply doesn’t arrive at a definite beginning. What’s more, there are legitimate theories that effectively rule out a definite beginning (like J. Richard Gott’s mentioned previously).

Also there is gut feeling, the teachings and ethics of Christ. There are several factors that have gone into my decision. If those factors led to a belief that God does not exist than I would be an atheist.

Your argument from gut feeling is the strongest one you have. It puts religion in the realm where it belongs -- personal experience. I have no argument with you on that count.

 

[DOC]

I don't need faith in order not to believe in something.

Being an atheist is believing God does not exist. If you can't be certain God does not exist, then it requires faith to believe He doesn't exist.

 

[joobz]

Being an atheist is believing God does not exist. If you can't be certain God does not exist, then it requires faith to believe He doesn't exist.

This is why very, very few atheists actually will say difinitively that god does not exist.

You can't be certain that Zeus, allah, Odin, Voldemort, Xenu don't exist.

 

[zooterkin]

Being an atheist is believing God does not exist. If you can't be certain God does not exist, then it requires faith to believe He doesn't exist.

You still have it backwards. There are many things I don't believe in, your God is one of them. It requires very little faith on my part.

Do you believe in Santa Claus? How about Shiva? How much faith does that require?

 

[zooterkin]

Possibly true, but irrelevant. The BB theory is not a form of atheism. There are plenty of devout “God fearing” Christians who accept the theory.

Good point; it has also been pointed out to DOC that millions of Christians also accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, but he declines to comment on this since it contradicts his premise.

 

[Fitter]

Being an atheist is believing God does not exist. If you can't be certain God does not exist, then it requires faith to believe He doesn't exist.

Wrong. All it requires is to accept that there is no empirical evidence of any deity. As there is no such evidence, I'm sure news of such would circle the globe in no time, no "faith" is required.

 

[joobz]

Possibly true, but irrelevant. The BB theory is not a form of atheism. There are plenty of devout “God fearing” Christians who accept the theory.

Well, DOC would contend that bb is an origin story, so it does not contradict christianity.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Well, DOC would contend that bb is an origin story, so it does not contradict christianity.

So he’s only saying the BB requires a God -- not that it didn’t occur? Okay, gotcha.

In that case, we need only point out the many BB variations that don’t require a single act of origin with nothing preceding.

Like J. Richard Gott’s time loop variation. Or the infinite regression of parent-daughter universes emerging from certain quantum models. Or eternally existing membranes sprouting collision-born universes in M theory.

Of course, a discrete moment of creation with nothing proceeding it in no sense demands the existence of a God, anyway. So maybe DOC needs to clarify his argument.

 

[Marcus]

Chalk up yet another question Doc can't bear to answer, not matter how often it is asked, or by whom. How much faith he requires to disbelieve Zeus, Allah, and the Flying Spagetti Monster. Personally I think the FSM has the edge on Sky Daddy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You guys have mentioned that Lemaitre was a Catholic priest?

 

[FireGarden]

So he’s only saying the BB requires a God -- not that it didn’t occur? Okay, gotcha.

In that case, we need only point out the many BB variations that don’t require a single act of origin with nothing preceding.

Like J. Richard Gott’s time loop variation. Or the infinite regression of parent-daughter universes emerging from certain quantum models. Or eternally existing membranes sprouting collision-born universes in M theory.

Jastrow himself considers such an option in his book, according to the review you linked:
http://www.denisdutton.com/jastrow_review.htm

But as things turn out, this is apparently not what he means, since toward the end of his book he speculates that the Big Bang may have been one of a series of cosmic explosions that alternate with cosmic collapses. We cannot have it both ways: if the Big Hang thus represents a moment in the history of an oscillating universe, it must not be the moment of absolute creation spoken of in Genesis.

The current consensus is that there won't be a collapse because expansion is accelerating rather than slowing down.

 

[gentlehorse]

Being an atheist is believing God does not exist. If you can't be certain God does not exist, then it requires faith to believe He doesn't exist.

One doesn't necessarily have to believe that god doesn't exist in order to be atheist. Some simply find it exceedingly difficult to believe in a god that they don't know to exist. Without belief, they are atheist by definition.

Do you truly think it requires faith to not believe?

 

[Prometheus]

Being an atheist is believing God does not exist. If you can't be certain God does not exist, then it requires faith to believe He doesn't exist.

If both belief and disbelief in a god require faith, then faith cannot be a virtue, now can it?