Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Physicist Says

C

Cypress

Well-known member
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/...cientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jack said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Cypress said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Cypress said:
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
Click to expand...

blah blah
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
blah blah
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...


The scientist in the article gave no argument for why atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
The scientist in the article gave no argument for why atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.
Click to expand...

""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
 
Cypress said:
""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
Click to expand...


Not an argument. Where is the physical evidence for God?
 
jacksonsprat22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
StoneByStone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
Cypress said:
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 .
Click to expand...

The existence of a god is a theory. It's just never defended scientifically, because it's all about feels.

If someone thinks Atheism is anything other than the lack of a belief, then that person doesn't understand Atheism.
 
StoneByStone said:
The existence of a god is a theory. It's just never defended scientifically, because it's all about feels.

If someone thinks Atheism is anything other than the lack of a belief, then that person doesn't understand Atheism.
Click to expand...

Why are theists always trying to tell atheists what we believe?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top