Science and Atheism

DRZ · 13 Jul 2006 at 02:46

I have just been thinking about a bit of a logical inconsistency in my view on the world.

Up until now I have considered myself strongly Atheistic - I do not believe in any sort of supreme being and I dont follow any religion. I dont have a problem with that, but Atheism is perhaps not the view someone like me should hold.

I am a sciencey type and generally I want a claim to be backed by proof and the results to be repeatable. Religion doesnt fit with this one bit - any "experiments" with prayer etc cannot be consistenly repeated and certainly not in any approved testing methodology I have ever heard of.

So far, so good. No logical problems there.

Unfortunately you have to consider the other side - the "what ifs". If "God" appeared before me and started pulling off all sorts of miracles could I still remain firmly Atheist? Would I become an instant believer? After all, it has just been pretty much categorically proved that a god does exist.

In this instance, does the fact that, irrespective of what I believe now, if a "supreme being" revealed itself to me I would start believing, make me an Agnostic?

I had previously considered being agnostic to be a very weak "on the fence" sort of standpoint but as far as I see it now at 2:45am on this Thursday morning, it is the only way to satisfy the logic of the situation.

Hmm.

Oliver · 13 Jul 2006 at 02:57

Nah, if a supreme being showed up it wouldn't make you agnostic, it'd just make you wrong as an atheist

iam · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:02

I'm an agnostic through and through - welcome aboard

ScarySquirrel · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:09

I didnt really understand your post but you just reminded me it is Thursday now, this week has gone well quick.

Raikiri · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:16

DRZ said:
snip
I had previously considered being agnostic to be a very weak "on the fence" sort of standpoint but as far as I see it now at 2:45am on this Thursday morning, it is the only way to satisfy the logic of the situation.

Hmm.

As said you don't have to be 'on the fence', you can be an atheist like me and if youu are proved wrong so be it.

iam · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:17

Raikiri said:
As said you don't have to be 'on the fence', you can be an atheist like me and if youu are proved wrong so be it.

But then you're ignoring the logic that DRZ has demonstrated?

To elaborate: the very fact that you believe that you could be proved wrong prevents you from being an atheist, and puts you more into the realms of an Agnostic Atheist.

semi-pro waster · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:26

Oliver said:
Nah, if a supreme being showed up it wouldn't make you agnostic, it'd just make you wrong as an atheist

I'd say this is right providing you do not accept that there could be a god, if you entertain the possibility then you are agnostic(fence-sitting boy

). Don't worry too much about being wrong though, even the largest religions have nominal amounts of around 1 billion members, that means you and a heck of a lot of people not making it to heaven/enlightenment/next stage etc.

A good scientist should be able to re-adjust their viewpoint to take account of new evidence, after all scientific fact is only ever "proved based on observed behaviour" in theory mavity could reverse tomorrow and we would just have to accept that everything previous counts for nothing and the theory was wrong, it is more complex than we initially suspected. That is a terrible analogy and poor use of terminology but I'm tired and I can't think of anything better right now. Basically I think the point I am trying to get across is that a good scientist should probably be agnostic to prevent any nasty logical errors although plenty of good(even great) scientists would likely declare themselves atheist.

Your question in a tangenital way reminds me of the following quote "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts.

Raikiri · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:35

iam said:
But then you're ignoring the logic that DRZ has demonstrated?

To elaborate: the very fact that you believe that you could be proved wrong prevents you from being an atheist, and puts you more into the realms of an Agnostic Atheist.

I never said you should believe you can be proved wrong

Just because you don't believe you could, doesnt mean it can't happen. (Not that I would be proven wrong, load of rubbish it is

)

DRZ · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:55

Raikiri said:
As said you don't have to be 'on the fence', you can be an atheist like me and if youu are proved wrong so be it.

A question to you as an atheist:

What would happen right now if you were proved wrong? If you can answer that question with something other than a VERY firm "I wont be proven wrong" then you are an agnostic and if you CAN answer with the firm "I wont be proven wrong" then you arent a true scientist.

That was the logical crux of my post

Raikiri · 13 Jul 2006 at 03:59

DRZ said:
A question to you as an atheist:

What would happen right now if you were proved wrong? If you can answer that question with something other than a VERY firm "I wont be proven wrong" then you are an agnostic and if you CAN answer with the firm "I wont be proven wrong" then you arent a true scientist.

That was the logical crux of my post

But if I was proven wrong at this very point in time, I would not have to doubt my beliefs before that point surely?

DRZ · 13 Jul 2006 at 04:04

Raikiri said:
But if I was proven wrong at this very point in time, I would not have to doubt my beliefs before that point surely?

Interesting.

The fact you consider that you could be proven wrong means you are agnostic, does it not?

I am not saying that you cant be an atheist right up until the point of seeing 'god' at which point you are a believer but I am saying that to do so and to also believe yourself to be "scientific" cannot logically happen.

Raikiri · 13 Jul 2006 at 04:10

I understand what you are saying completely and I agree, I just don't like it

I suppose you are right that completely dismissing something means I cannot be scientific but in doing so I am also not being an atheist... how irritating

The Pat · 13 Jul 2006 at 04:33

Another agnostic here. I was atheist, due to the fact that none of the religions seem possible to me. Then I thought about the big bang theory and thought; well where did the particles come from in the first place?

glissando · 13 Jul 2006 at 04:49

Even if some super-powerful being showed itself to you you can't really prove that it's actually God.

In fact, I don't think any vision could really prove itself to be God.

DRZ · 13 Jul 2006 at 04:54

glissando said:
Even if some super-powerful being showed itself to you you can't really prove that it's actually God.

In fact, I don't think any vision could really prove itself to be God.

In the classical sense, someone revealing themselves to be god is done in such a way as to leave no doubt. Clearly, being a scientist, anything that was done would need to be repeatable on demand etc

So, does your statement make you a true atheist (and not a scientist) then? You cant flat refuse to accept something is possible without at least some testing and still call yourself a scientist

semi-pro waster · 13 Jul 2006 at 05:03

glissando said:
Even if some super-powerful being showed itself to you you can't really prove that it's actually God.

In fact, I don't think any vision could really prove itself to be God.

If you want you could ignore pretty much anything on that basis, even if you were to suppose a super-powerful being existed and they could therefore conjour up anything you could think of and do anything you could think of, they could still be dismissed as not being god but merely 'a' god. At some point faith comes into almost any belief, in the supernatural, in science or in just about anything so it is a personal thing what level of 'proof' you will accept as being sufficient.

glissando · 13 Jul 2006 at 05:14

DRZ said:
In the classical sense, someone revealing themselves to be god is done in such a way as to leave no doubt. Clearly, being a scientist, anything that was done would need to be repeatable on demand etc

So, does your statement make you a true atheist (and not a scientist) then? You cant flat refuse to accept something is possible without at least some testing and still call yourself a scientist

No, I believe in God, actually.

DRZ · 13 Jul 2006 at 05:17

glissando said:
No, I believe in God, actually.

You mean to say that if your god revealed himself to you, you would not recognise him as god, no matter what?

Either your earlier statement was playing devil's advocate, you didnt mean what you said in the way I interpreted it or you dont truly believe in god!

Raymond Lin · 13 Jul 2006 at 05:19

If you truly believe in science then there would be no "what if".

There is either proof, or there isn't. Until it get proven wrong years later...ie the world is not flat !

semi-pro waster · 13 Jul 2006 at 05:29

Raymond Lin said:
If you truly believe in science then there would be no "what if".

There is either proof, or there isn't. Until it get proven wrong years later...ie the world is not flat !

I don't see how that logically follows, a fair portion of science exists on concepts that cannot be conclusively proved so to keep your mind open is surely one of the primary requirements to be a good scientist? If that is indeed the case then agnosticism is a good state of belief for a scientist to have.