Robert Tulip wrote:This attitude that scientists are "above having faith" is a purist line that makes them seem oh so holy in their principled reticence. There is arrogance and there is arrogance. Saying you cannot know anything with certainty is arrogant, and a lie. This affected humility is a dangerous deceit.

It leaves the public in doubt as to the truth of scientific knowledge because scientists come across as cowards who lack the courage of their convictions. So we get a failure of political engagement by timid scientists and a refusal to enter moral debate about the big questions of our day, such as climate change.

The idea of atheism as unmilitant is a lukewarm failure of integrity. But militancy does not mean hostility towards religion, it simply means absolute certainty regarding epistemology, that science presents a consistent and coherent materialist explanation for reality.

I think you're misreading my post, Robert.

An atheist is simply someone who is without belief in a god. In science, the question of the existence God—whatever flavor of God is being offered—is not generally addressed for the same reason a teapot orbiting Saturn is not addressed. There's no evidence for it, and so no reason to put much thought into it. Likewise, scientists don't generally concern themselves with the supernatural. Confidence in science is based on the preponderance of evidence.

However, wherever the stupidity of Creationist thinking threatens to insinuate itself into our lives, all thinking people should take action and protest loudly. This is no longer a question of the existence of God, but the role of religious dogma in our lives. If Creationists want to do away with the study of evolution in our schools, we should all fight that, atheists and theists alike. Belief in God is not relevant to this issue, or shouldn't be at least. An atheist might be more inclined to fight against religious dogma, but the atheism has nothing to do with it.

I completely agree that science presents a consistent and coherent materialist explanation for reality. But for complex psychological reasons, some people seek mystical explanations anyway. I think that's why it's so important to be able to distinguish faith from science.

However, the big difference is that militant atheism is compatible with everything we see, whereas theism is incompatible with everything we see.

I disagree with this, but you have a right to that opinion.

So dogmatism in science, which means regarding ideas such as the theory of evolution as necessarily true, is actually far better, more informative and more accurate than any religious dogma, simply because it is true.

You are being far too lenient with your definition of science as dogma. I think you know that though.

As to the supposed 'genetic fallacy' arising from the observation that science has not been able to create life, yes the origin of life is an unknown

Robert,
How on earth did you reason that the genetic fallacy I was referring to was based on the premise that science has not been able to create life?? I am totally perplexed by this.

Sadly, your attack on science is entirely free of content, except the observation that the efforts of science to avoid faith are futile.

Robert,

Why it is you think I'm attacking science is beyond me. Re-read Dwill's post and mine. My questions run deeper than sitting in a Darwinian classroom listening to atheists ramble on ad nauseum about the mechanics of evolution and how it explains the origin of life. GO AWAY, YOU DIRTY THEISTS! WE KNOW IT ALL BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS IN!!

but that anyone who says religious claims may be literally true when they conflict with science is insane.

How is that relevant to this entire conversation, Robert?
I think that was more of a general expression of anger than relevance to what we've been discussing here.

ant wrote:Have you addressed my initial questions/comments regarding the origin of life? Although your argument demonstrates mechanistic evolutionary processes, why does it not commit a genetic fallacy of irrelevant conclusion?

Ant's argument is
A. Science says the universe is mechanistic
B. Science concludes that therefore evolution of life is mechanistic, therefore
C. Science commits a 'genetic fallacy' of irrelevant conclusion because B does not follow from A.

However, in this case B does follow from A, so ant is wrong. The only 'genetic fallacy' argument I can see in this context is to claim that because science cannot explain the origin of life it cannot exclude a supernatural creator. If there is another supposed fallacy then ant should explain it.

ant wrote: the ingredients were all there in the soup. I mean, it's that simple. It all makes logical sense.

ant, you are entirely disingenuous if you think your comments such as this eye rolling caper do not read as a direct attack on science.

You say we should roll our eyes when people claim that the origin of life is a purely material event. That is an attack on science by you.

As to whether 'this entire conversation' relates to the truth of religious claims, ant may wish to read the opening post and the thread title which directly imply truth of religious ideas that conflict with science, not to mention the use of rolling eye smilies by one disingenuous participant aimed at casting aspersions on the scientific worldview of atheism.

There is arrogance and there is arrogance. Saying you cannot know anything with certainty is arrogant, and a lie. This affected humility is a dangerous deceit.

This is a great comment.


David Hume (I'm certain you know this) held that we have no impression of causation, of one event making another event happen. All experience shows us is one thing after another. The connections between them can not be experienced. Also, we have no impression of enduring things. Our experience is constantly changing. The sensations we have do not endure and are not constant.

How might this apply to evolution?
How will evolution explain the connections that might have preceded biological life to get it started?
If things that endure throughout time can never be proven to exist, and if God fits that description, how can you rule out ITS existence?

It has been said "people see, eyes dont." How might that impact our ability to attempt to disprove the existence of something?
Is it reasonable for an atheist to claim an intelligence beyond our sensations/impressions does not exist?

Ant's argument is
A. Science says the universe is mechanistic
B. Science concludes that therefore evolution of life is mechanistic, therefore
C. Science commits a 'genetic fallacy' of irrelevant conclusion because B does not follow from A.

I stopped right there because you are misunderstanding what a genetic fallacy is and how it applies to what I originally stated.

Robert, this is embarrassing.

ant, it doesn't do your case any good to make opaque comments and then patronise me for failing to understand you. I doubt that anyone else here has the foggiest idea what you are talking about or why you are embarrassed. You refuse to explain the so-called fallacy but just tut tut about how stupid I am for not reading your mind. Maybe there is no fallacy and you are imagining it?

The material on David Hume does not help you at all. All Hume showed was that without a recognition that there are necessary truths, such as the connection between cause and effect, we are lost in the mire of doubt. We should regard evolution as a necessary truth, as a condition of experience.

Matter and energy endure through time. We know this because it matches completely to all our observation and is a necessary condition for experience. The existence of God, in any meaningful sense, is not a necessary condition for experience in the same way the persistence of matter/energy through time is necessary.

geo wrote:An atheist is simply someone who is without belief in a god.

That happens to be one popular negative definition of atheism, but other definitions are also possible. Atheism can also be defined positively, as belief that natural explanations are sufficient and exhaustive.

In science, the question of the existence of God—whatever flavor of God is being offered—is not generally addressed for the same reason a teapot orbiting Saturn is not addressed. There's no evidence for it, and so no reason to put much thought into it. Likewise, scientists don't generally concern themselves with the supernatural. Confidence in science is based on the preponderance of evidence.

That is true for science, which in philosophical terms rejects all certainty. However, atheism extends beyond scientific caution, to assert that the teapot definitely does not exist because it is absurd and impossible. In this positive sense, atheism is a form of faith, holding that the consistency of our universe means that claims that are inconsistent with scientific knowledge are definitely false, such as the existence of God. Scientists may regard the assertion that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn as baseless dogma, but that only illustrates the impotence of science when it refuses to comment on matters that sit outside immediate evidence. There is a broader question of whether we accept ideas that are incompatible with what we know. Neither God nor Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot are compatible with what we know. Deductively, both should be absolutely rejected on that basis alone.

However, wherever the stupidity of Creationist thinking threatens to insinuate itself into our lives, all thinking people should take action and protest loudly. This is no longer a question of the existence of God, but the role of religious dogma in our lives. If Creationists want to do away with the study of evolution in our schools, we should all fight that, atheists and theists alike. Belief in God is not relevant to this issue, or shouldn't be at least. An atheist might be more inclined to fight against religious dogma, but the atheism has nothing to do with it.

Belief in God is entirely relevant to the problem of efforts to undermine rational tuition. Theist belief in God is not rational, so provides a threshold that once crossed allows all manner of miraculous fantasies. Atheism is a logical natural strategy to protect against the promotion of irrational fantasy.

However, we should distinguish between religion and Theism. It is entirely possible to maintain religious ritual traditions and to hold reverence for ethical teachings and symbols as a way to build community, while rejecting any Theist claims that contradict science and logic. This is the line taken by Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong. Even texts such as the creation stories in Genesis can be read in a way that is meaningful for a scientific audience. The threshold of error in this material is when we start thinking that these supernatural superstitions give any basis for beliefs that contradict scientific knowledge.

I completely agree that science presents a consistent and coherent materialist explanation for reality. But for complex psychological reasons, some people seek mystical explanations anyway. I think that's why it's so important to be able to distinguish faith from science.

The term 'mystical' is another interesting one. Science does not exclude mystical explanations, in the sense that there are deep mysteries of the universe that we do not comprehend. There may well be patterns in nature that shape our destiny in ways that are completely mysterious to our current level of scientific knowledge. But that does not mean that such patterns are unnatural or supernatural. If we accept there are natural mysterious patterns in the universe, we may find there is still room for faith in a way that is compatible with atheism.

Even science has need for faith. For example, ant raised the problem of Hume's scepticism, his argument that there is no necessary connection observable to the senses between a cause and its effect. If we hold that there must be such a connection as a condition of our experience, this certainty is a matter of faith. It means we regard the causal evolutionary material nature of the universe as axiomatically true. We therefore find that true faith is at the foundation of scientific knowledge.

The well of faith has been contaminated by a pervasive error that misinterprets Hebrews 11:1, where faith is defined as "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". The universal law of causality is "evidence of things not seen" and so can only be accepted as a matter of faith. But causality differs from God, because we have continual evidence for causality, while we have none for God.

ant wrote:Is it reasonable for an atheist to claim an intelligence beyond our sensations/impressions does not exist?

You're defining a deity it seems, which is not reasonable to rule out. According to that definition, I'm agnostic. If you mean to include the god of the bible in your definition, then it is reasonable to say he does not exist, at least as represented by the bible.

Robert Tulip wrote:If we hold that there must be such a connection as a condition of our experience, this certainty is a matter of faith. It means we regard the causal evolutionary material nature of the universe as axiomatically true. We therefore find that true faith is at the foundation of scientific knowledge.

Why must we have certainty? Only when you're certain is faith required. Don't be certain, but be confident. Its utility as a bulwark against harmful fundamentalism does not make it a truthful position. Useful, but not truthful.

The problem here goes back to the debate between the ideas of Hume and Kant over scepticism. Kant famously said Hume 'woke me from my dogmatic slumbers' with his comments on how we can know about causality. Kant's answer was that for knowledge to be possible we require necessary truths.

Without certainty over simple questions such as the existence of space, time and causality, Kant argued that human experience would be impossible. We obviously do not know everything about these simple questions, but broadly, we know that the universe is big, old and mechanistic. Everything in our experience confirms these a priori assumptions.

If we say we can have confidence but no certainty, we say we are certain of nothing, which means we know nothing. That is solipsism. As soon as we identify any simple proposition that we consider admits of no doubt, for example 'the universe is big and old', we have a foundation upon which we can build with absolute systematic logical certainty. Otherwise we are left assenting to absurd statements such as 'I am unsure if the universe exists'.

The proposition 'the universe is mechanistic' is at the basis of all science, but is rejected by spiritualists. As such, its logical status may not be as firm as the proposition that the universe is big and old. I'm going out on a dogmatic limb here and saying that I think the universe is mechanistic.

On ant's postulate of a mystery intelligence governing the universe, my view is that there is intelligibility, for example in the laws of nature, but not intelligence. Intelligence is a function of life. It is a category mistake to describe non-living entities like the sun as intelligent. We should subscribe to a philosophy that is compatible with experience. Imagining that God exists other than as poetic metaphor is incompatible with experience.

If we say we can have confidence but no certainty, we say we are certain of nothing, which means we know nothing.

It's semantics all the way down Robert. Who says we need certainty in our knowledge? You're nesting the requirement for certainty in one concept after the other in an attempt to make it a requirement.