Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Minister of Truth, The Anonymous, USFREEDOM911, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Legion Troll, canceled.2021.2, CFM, Superfreak, TOP, volsrock, Yurt, Earl, Terri4Trump, Lord Yurt and OG Yurt


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53

Thread: Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Physicist Says

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Physicist Says

    One could argue that an uncommitted agnosticism, not atheism, is more consistent with the scientific method.

    Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says

    In conversation, the 2019 Templeton Prize winner does not pull punches on the limits of science, the value of humility and the irrationality of nonbelief

    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 Foundation annually 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.

    Across his 35-year scientific career, Gleiser’s research has covered a wide breadth of topics, ranging from the properties of the early universe to the behavior of fundamental particles and the origins of life. But in awarding him its most prestigious honor, the Templeton Foundation chiefly cited his status as a leading public intellectual revealing “the historical, philosophical and cultural links between science, the humanities and spirituality.” He is also the first Latin American to receive the prize.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...hysicist-says/

    On the flip side, we have the view of prominent atheists to consider:

    Nietzsche famously asserts that God is dead - that there is no transcendent “beyond” - that the only meaning comes through creative activities through which we shape a life for ourselves.

    Religion, according to Freud, was an expression of underlying psychosis and mental illnesses.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    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.”


    Then show the physical conditions for God's existence. He cannot.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    One could argue that an uncommitted agnosticism, not atheism, is more consistent with the scientific method.




    On the flip side, we have the view of prominent atheists to consider:

    Nietzsche famously asserts that God is dead - that there is no transcendent “beyond” - that the only meaning comes through creative activities through which we shape a life for ourselves.

    Religion, according to Freud, was an expression of underlying psychosis and mental illnesses.
    One could argue that an uncommitted agnosticism, not atheism, is more consistent with the scientific method.
    Yes. 'Atheists' claim 'there is no God'. How do they know that? How can ANYONE claim there is, or is not, a God or Gods?

    Religion, according to Freud, was an expression of underlying psychosis and mental illnesses.
    The Religious Fanatics seem to have some major problems. I would agree, especially in the 21st century, that they seem to be suffering from some mental disease.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Yes. 'Atheists' claim 'there is no God'. How do they know that? How can ANYONE claim there is, or is not, a God or Gods?



    The Religious Fanatics seem to have some major problems. I would agree, especially in the 21st century, that they seem to be suffering from some mental disease.
    I stand with Immanuel Kant who maintained that there is certain types of knowedge we can acquire by reason and induction, but there is also knowedge which is completely beyond our ability to reach with reason and experimentation.

    I believe that is the terrain this Brazilian physicist is occupying

    We are basically just smart chimpanzees, and it is hubris to think we have the cognitive development to understand all of reality

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I stand with Immanuel Kant who maintained that there is certain types of knowedge we can acquire by reason and induction, but there is also knowedge which is completely beyond our ability to reach with reason and experimentation.

    I believe that is the terrain this Brazilian physicist is occupying

    We are basically just smart chimpanzees, and it is hubris to think we have the cognitive development to understand all of reality

    Then leave the question alone. You are contradicting Kant. And...I know more about Kant than you, please don't make a fool of yourself again.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    Then leave the question alone! You are contradicting Kant. And...I know more about Kant than you, please don't make a fool of yourself again.
    You must literally be the only person on the planet who claims to have a master's degree in philosophy, but who patrols the internet trying to shut down discussions of epistemology and metaphysics.

    If you actually have anything you want to say about Kant's noumenal and phenomenal realms of reality, you should start your own thread about it


    One argument the theists have for the existence of God is a finely tuned universe which seems to be balanced on a razor's edge allowing matter and energy to evolve into life. Supposedly a line of evidence for intelligent design.

    Just a slight tweak to any of the cosmological constants in the equations of general relativity or the standard model of particle physics would throw the universe as we know it would throw the universe totally out of whack.

    On the other hand, smart people challenge this assumption by asking if the gravitational constant, Planck's constant et al. actually could physically be any other value. Our mental filters could be making assumptions which are nor possible

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    You must literally be the only person on the planet who claims to have a master's degree in philosophy, but who patrols the internet trying to shut down discussions of epistemology and metaphysics.

    If you actually have anything you want to say about Kant's noumenal and phenomenal realms of reality, you should start your own thread about it


    One argument the theists have for the existence of God is a finely tuned universe which seems to be balanced on a razor's edge allowing matter and energy to evolve into life. Supposedly a line of evidence for intelligent design.

    Just a slight tweak to any of the cosmological constants in the equations of general relativity or the standard model of particle physics would throw the universe as we know it would throw the universe totally out of whack.

    On the other hand, smart people challenge this assumption by asking if the gravitational constant, Planck's constant et al. actually could physically be any other value. Our mental filters could be making assumptions which are nor possible
    blah blah

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    blah blah
    The fact that you keep yelling how much smarter you are than me, and how many master's degrees you have sounds like an inferiority complex.

    I am not going to apologize for being reasonably well read in philosophy, science, history, religion.

    I am a total dumbass when it comes to the stock market, accounting, high finance, and moonshine distilling.

  9. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    The fact that you keep yelling how much smarter you are than me, and how many master's degrees you have sounds like an inferiority complex.

    I am not going to apologize for being reasonably well read in philosophy, science, history, religion.

    I am a total dumbass when it comes to the stock market, accounting, high finance, and moonshine distilling.

    The scientist in the article gave no argument for why atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    The scientist in the article gave no argument for why atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.
    ""I 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."

    - Dr. Marcelo Gleiser

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    ""I 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."

    - Dr. Marcelo Gleiser

    Not an argument. Where is the physical evidence for God?

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Pew Poll result

    51 percent of scientists believe either in God or a higher spritual power

    41 percent do not believe in either

    https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/...ts-and-belief/

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacksonsprat22 View Post
    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.”


    Then show the physical conditions for God's existence. He cannot.
    In science, if we don't have enough evidence for a theory, we say we don't believe in that theory. We don't say the theory is definitely wrong, just that believing in it right now wouldn't be logical.
    So I don't see how Atheism is inconsistent with scientific thinking.

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    7,177
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,099 Times in 1,499 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 812 Times in 726 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    In science, if we don't have enough evidence for a theory, we say we don't believe in that theory. We don't say the theory is definitely wrong, just that believing in it right now wouldn't be logical.
    So I don't see how Atheism is inconsistent with scientific thinking.

    Agree.

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,793
    Thanks
    35,483
    Thanked 50,294 Times in 27,099 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    In science, if we don't have enough evidence for a theory, we say we don't believe in that theory. We don't say the theory is definitely wrong, just that believing in it right now wouldn't be logical.
    So I don't see how Atheism is inconsistent with scientific thinking.
    God is not a theory, and neither is atheism.

    God and religious belief is not subject to falsification and the principles of the scientific method.

    Atheism is a declarative, unequivocal statement. I believe that is the point of Dr. Marcelo Gleiser.

    In that sense, he feels uncommitted agnosticism is the more valid and rational response .

Similar Threads

  1. The appropriate method of dealing with fascists
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-23-2017, 10:31 PM
  2. APP - us homicides by method
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 12:44 AM
  3. Rape Is A Method of Conception
    By Howey in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 09:10 AM
  4. The troll method of debate
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 08-25-2011, 07:36 AM
  5. Better Cancer detection method
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 11:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •