Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Physicist Says

[Cypress]

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.

No, God is not a theory, or more accurately it is not a hypothesis, in the scientific sense. A valid scientific theory has to be testable and falsifiable.

That is why many scientists believe religion is outside the boundaries of the scientific method.

The type of atheism being duscussed by the professor is the declarative and unequivocal rejection of the possibility of God and a spiritual higher power

That is why agnosticism is definitionally distinct from atheism

 

[jacksonsprat22]

Movies involving Thor have made more money than moving involving Yahweh. Y'all can think about that for a while.

Nice!

 

[bhaktajan]

Nice!

Ya might be confusing Thor movies with some other blockbusters.

Sixty years later, 'The Ten Commandments' remains one of the most popular biblical films ever made
March 26th, 2016

Box-office take on initial theatrical run: $120 million ($1.05 billion, adjusted for inflation)

 

[bhaktajan]

God and No God exist simultaneously.

The existence of God
and
The Non-existence of God cannot be separated.

Just like Death is followed by life
and
Life is followed by Death.

Light exists where there is darkness.
Darkness exists where there is Light --the two opposites cannot be separated.

FYI: Opposites exist in pairs

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science does not use supporting evidence. A theory, including a theory of science, is an explanatory argument. It is a declaration.

 

[Into the Night]

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

They could be any value. The purpose of natural constants is to convert relations to our unit of measurement.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Any religion is inconsistent with science, fundamentalist 'atheism' included (really the Church of No God). Science is not a method or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Life. The Earth itself. The Moon. The stars. The Sun. The planets. The existence of scripture. Physics.

None of these are a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

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/scientists-and-belief/

Polls don't mean anything.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science does not use supporting evidence. All theories are logical, even non-scientific ones. A theory cannot contain any fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

God is not a theory,

When a god is used as an explanation for something, it is a theory. It is not a theory of science, however, since it is not possible to test whether such god even exists or not.

and neither is atheism.

The Church of No God is based on the initial circular argument that no god or gods exist, but you are correct. This is not a theory, for it does not try to explain anything.

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

Quite right.

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

A theory is also a declarative, unequivocal statement. It is an explanatory argument. This is true of both scientific and non-scientific theories.

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

Science itself is agnostic. It does not try to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods. It simply doesn't go there.

 

[Into the Night]

The existence of a god is a theory.

No, it isn't. This statement does not explain anything. A theory is an explanatory argument.

It's just never defended scientifically,

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It doesn't have anything to do with whether a god or gods exist or not.

because it's all about feels.

A god or gods is not feels. It is a simply a god or gods.

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

You are not an atheist. You belong to the Church of No God, sometimes called a fundamentalist 'atheist'.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Most scientists do not believe that. It came from Karl Popper.

 

[Into the Night]

Why are theists always trying to tell atheists what we believe?!

You are not an atheist. You believe there is no god or gods.

 

[Into the Night]

I think Theists know that religion isn't logical, so they try equating Atheism with Theism. That way they can say "both sides" are illogical, which means you can't criticize Theism.

Religion is quite logical. Denial of logic. Your religion is different from mine.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes. I find that tedious. "I believe in God. You believe in Thor. Who's to say what is right?"

Both are logical statements. There is no fallacy in either statement.

No one can say who's right.

 

[Into the Night]

Movies involving Thor have made more money than moving involving Yahweh. Y'all can think about that for a while.

Hollywood likes cheap violence. Thor's hammer is a wonderful solution.

 

[jacksonsprat22]

You are not an atheist. You believe there is no god or gods.

You have no idea what I believe.

 

[Into the Night]

No, God is not a theory, or more accurately it is not a hypothesis,

No god or gods is either, unless one is used to explain something else.

in the scientific sense.

In any sense.

A valid scientific theory has to be testable and falsifiable.

There is no such thing as a 'valid' scientific theory. A theory of science is automatically valid. A non-scientific theory is also automatically valid. All theories are logical. They must be free of any fallacy. This is also known as the internal consistency check.

That is why many scientists believe religion is outside the boundaries of the scientific method.

Science isn't a method or a procedure. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. It is not a scientist, or even people at all.

The type of atheism being duscussed by the professor is the declarative and unequivocal rejection of the possibility of God and a spiritual higher power

So he is essentially of the Church of No God.

That is why agnosticism is definitionally distinct from atheism

No. It isn't.

Agnostic simply means 'without god'. It doesn't deny one exists, nor confirms that one exists. It can, however, acknowledge and even be a part of any religion in which no god or gods are part of.
Atheist simply means anti-theist. It also doesn't deny a god or gods exist or not. It takes part in no religion. It is the only viewpoint that has no viewpoint.

The Church of No God (sometimes mistakenly referred to as 'atheists' is both a religion and it concerns a god or gods that are believed to not exist. It is a fundamentalist style religion. It's members often feel they must prove that no god or gods exist, which of course, is not possible.

 

[Into the Night]

You have no idea what I believe.

Then perhaps your previous posts on this matter are ones you wish to withdraw?