Originally posted by UshgarakThis is wrong. Atheism is merely more probable, not correct. Until recently many scientific evidence for a great many truths has been absent, this did not mean that the opposite stance was correct, only that proper study was beyond our ability up to that point. Science is indeed interested in preconceptions, a preconceived concept is the impetus behind scientific progress. Science is not interested in preconceptions that are held in spite of proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary is not present in the case of deity, it does not make theism correct, yet it also does not make atheism correct by default. There is no proof of a "mind" or "consciousness " either, yet I doubt a scientist would categorically state that such is scientifically impossible. Do not confuse skepticism with proof. Skepticism is valuable, absolute statements concerning the nonexistence of a phenomenon without proof is foolish, and has been shown to often be in error.
Untrue.Theism implies something being there.
All Atheism needs to be true is simply the absence of theism being right.
Without anything to prove theism, and indeed its existence being scientifically irrational, the scientific position is atheism, and that indeed is the singular reason why the scientific consensus tends towards the atheistic. Good science is not interested in preconceptions, only the search for the truth. That search has found no evidence of God and this automatically puts Theism in the weaker position; that lack of evidence is effectively evidence in favour of atheism, theism being such an extreme concept as to have to warrant evidence for any serious consideration.
Bottom line- theism is the one that needs evidence. Lacking it, atheism is demonstrated to be correct.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, to not belief in God is not irrational. To pretend a God cannot exist is. And well, atheists oftentimes get carried away, as their doubt might be seen as weakness to a believer. They adopt styles that are just as radical as some of those opposing. As Russel said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. "Not that I am saying that either Theists or Atheists are fools. Just radical, absolute believes are foolish. Not to think they might be right, but to think to know they are right. I am making myself less and less clear as I go along, don't I?
Re: Scientific evidence against religion?
Originally posted by Regret
Some evidence/facts that do not threaten the concept of God:[list][*]Evolution[*]Big Bang[*]Archaeological Finds[/list]
What's the church's stance on evolution right now? Genesis: all species were created at the same time, or that god guides evolution to a preestablished end. They need to make up their mind... Reason dictates that if someting is contradictory, it should be deemed fabrication, god for example.
Re: Re: Scientific evidence against religion?
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
What's the church's stance on evolution right now? Genesis: all species were created at the same time, or that god guides evolution to a preestablished end. They need to make up their mind... Reason dictates that if someting is contradictory, it should be deemed fabrication, god for example.
1. All Christian religions believe that the universe exists.
This is a good start.
2. Not all Christian religions believe that the universe came into being in the same manner.
Some are young-Earth creationists--those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (Earth was created in six days of twenty-four hours; the Earth is around 6,000 years old).
Some are Intelligent Design theorists (I prefer the term "theistic evolutionists," as it avoids the connotive and politically charged aspects of the term), who believe that God has directly guided and "steered" evolution. If I am not incorrect, it is basically saying "macroevolution cannot happen without a guiding force; this points to an intelligent creator who has made it work."
Some are strict evolutionists who believe God set the entire thing in motion.
Originally posted by RegretThe impetus for science is observation. Objective science is based on not having preconceptions of what underlies the observation.
This is wrong. Atheism is merely more probable, not correct. Until recently many scientific evidence for a great many truths has been absent, this did not mean that the opposite stance was correct, only that proper study was beyond our ability up to that point. Science is indeed interested in preconceptions, a preconceived concept is the impetus behind scientific progress. Science is not interested in preconceptions that are held in spite of proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary is not present in the case of deity, it does not make theism correct, yet it also does not make atheism correct by default. There is no proof of a "mind" or "consciousness " either, yet I doubt a scientist would categorically state that such is scientifically impossible. Do not confuse skepticism with proof. Skepticism is valuable, absolute statements concerning the nonexistence of a phenomenon without proof is foolish, and has been shown to often be in error.
The null hypothesis is accepted as correct to a certain degree of confidence when one cannot exhibit an effect. The burden of providing proof positive is on one who proposes an effect.
Originally posted by Regret
This is wrong. Atheism is merely more probable, not correct. Until recently many scientific evidence for a great many truths has been absent, this did not mean that the opposite stance was correct, only that proper study was beyond our ability up to that point. Science is indeed interested in preconceptions, a preconceived concept is the impetus behind scientific progress. Science is not interested in preconceptions that are held in spite of proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary is not present in the case of deity, it does not make theism correct, yet it also does not make atheism correct by default. There is no proof of a "mind" or "consciousness " either, yet I doubt a scientist would categorically state that such is scientifically impossible. Do not confuse skepticism with proof. Skepticism is valuable, absolute statements concerning the nonexistence of a phenomenon without proof is foolish, and has been shown to often be in error.
No, sorry, I very strongly feel for this to not be the case.
Like I say, theism is such a strong concept as to be the one that requires evidence. In the absence of evidence, atheism is the default and correct viewpoint. There are some things and concepts that are so absurd that a lack of evidence for them is as good as evidence to the contrary existing, and this is one such area.
By any rational or logical application of science, the conclusion is atheism, simply because that is what is there if there is no particular other conclusion to be had.
You ask, basically, why you find your theistic stance under continual scientific attack. Well, this is why. Scientifically speaking, theism is wrong, and the process I describe is why that is. Science does indeed support atheism and attack theism. There is no proof for theism within science. Therefore the conclusion of science today is one of atheism. The burden of proof is on theism. Theism loses.
Incidentally, about your comment on the Mind, well, that's simply wrong on two points. First of all, every one of us has direct evidence that the mind exists. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that science cannot cope with such a concept. It is early days but there has been plenty of work and presented evidence and theories in that area.
Originally posted by UshgarakE.g. advances in fMRI allowing studies into the neural correlates of higher thought processes such as complex emotions.
Incidentally, about your comment on the Mind, well, that's simply wrong on two points. First of all, every one of us has direct evidence that the mind exists. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that science cannot cope with such a concept. It is early days but there has been plenty of work and presented evidence and theories in that area.
The matter of the fact is, as far as impirical evidence go, we do not have any to support Theism.
However it is egoceric to believe that just because we have not aquired kowledge in a specific are, it must be wrong / non existant.
Lets look at the Big Bang.
Big Bang is a great theory - its a model which admits very exotic physical phenomena that include dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic inflation which rely on conditions and physics that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments. (source - wiki)
Cosidring that the Big Bang, could probably not be proven (although not impssible), it is also a not observed, not proven theory, widely accepted by majority of scientists and just as religion, offeres explanation which fits with ONLY what the physics known up until this point.