Religion
Related: About this forumDartmouth physicist, known for doubting skeptics, wins 2019 Templeton Prize
From the article:
“I see atheism as being inconsistent with the scientific method as it is, essentially, belief in non-belief,” Gleiser said in a 2018 interview in Scientific American. “You may not believe in God, but to affirm its nonexistence with certainty is not scientifically consistent.”
To read more:
https://religionnews.com/2019/03/19/dartmouth-physicist-known-for-doubting-skeptics-wins-2019-templeton-prize/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
enki23
(7,795 posts)Karadeniz
(23,468 posts)
Mariana
(15,174 posts)The professor says, “You may not believe in God, but to affirm its nonexistence with certainty is not scientifically consistent.”
For starters, he mentions only one particular god, but lots of people who don't believe in that particular god believe in other ones, and therefore are not atheists, by definition. There have been thousands of gods proposed, and atheists don't think any of them are real. Furthermore, there isn't any certainty about it for most of us. We don't believe there's such things as gods, but we don't pretend to know for sure. If anyone ever comes up with some compelling evidence for the existence of this or that god, most atheists would then accept the existence of that god.
Karadeniz
(23,468 posts)doesn't comport with his understanding of science. Experiments with mind, however, have demonstrated the existence of reality beyond the physical...not deity, but a step up from atheism IMHO.❤
Mariana
(15,174 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 21, 2019, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)
If he thinks it does, he doesn't know what he's talking about, and should probably stick to discussing physics. Making stuff up, as he seems to have done, doesn't accomplish anything useful.
Atheism also has nothing to do with "the existence of reality beyond the physical". Atheists don't believe any gods exist. One can believe literally anything else, including "the existence of reality beyond the physical" and still be an atheist.
Will you provide links to information about these experiments with mind, please?
Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)All theistic religions in which I'm aware base their entire theology on the certainty that one or more deities do in fact exist. So even if it were true that atheists must believe in non-existence of deities (and it isn't), then impeaching this position must also impeach the theists' unprovable position. Then if one uses reason to analyze the dichotomy you find that one of those two claims is quite extraordinary while the other isn't at all.
The argument Gleiser and you are making is actually a false dichotomy and is fallacious. Atheism doesn't require belief of non-existence of deities, only the rejection of belief in deities. Most atheists are apatheists.
Even if one buys into the false dichotomy Gleiser is trying to establish, his reasoning is quite foolish. Unprovable assumptions are used quite frequently in the realm of science and without them our understanding of the universe would be extremely limited.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Get real. The above-mentioned deities do not exist. Never have. The Judaeo-Christian/Islamic deity, the Hindu deities, the deities of every kind have no more claim to existence than the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The good doctor is wrong in his opinion. It is quite consistent with the scientific method to conclude there is no such thing as a god or goddess. Evidence in favor of the hypothesis they exist which has been submitted to date has not supported their existence. Not by a long shot.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)but sure as hell they don't understand atheism.
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)Atheists believe only that which has demonstrable evidence. We don't "believe in non-belief." That's ridiculous!
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)There is nothing you have to believe to be an atheist. Not believing in any god, is the only qualification required. Beyond that, an atheist can believe in anything at all.
https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism/
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)MineralMan
(147,853 posts)Just like you do about whatever it is that you believe with regard to deities. Me? I'm an atheist. I don't believe that any deities exist or ever have. It's really simple.
You? Who knows what your beliefs are? I certainly don't. Do you?
muriel_volestrangler
(102,627 posts)I think he is a pretty crappy philosopher, if he is so careless with his language on a subject he is meant to be an expert in.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(102,627 posts)and wasn't just an attempt at an 18th century vibe, before the term 'science' came into use. But still, they claim " he reveals the historical, philosophical, and cultural links of being alive", whatever that's supposed to mean, so you'd think he'd have some clue about philosophy.
The point is, you pointed out that atheism means "not believing in gods", but he tries to take it further than that - saying it means affirming "its" (he means "their", since this should consider any god, but, again, he's a crappy thinker) nonexistence. He's just not very good at arguing about gods. Money for old rope.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...Freedom's Watch, Milton Friedman, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.
You really should get a good luck at who you're jumping into bed with before you take the plunge.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And was rewarded for it by evil people.
Grats, Bill. You win again.
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)Atheism isn't a belief at all. That's the whole point of it.
Who is that Gleiser fellow, anyhow? Do you know him personally? Why would you believe his definition of atheism? Ask an atheist. He's not one.
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)I was not aware of that association. Feh!
edhopper
(34,998 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)A right-wing thinktank gives a million pounds to a guy because they thought his hypothesis that atheism is just another religion was the most groundbreaking contribution to spirituality last year. Maybe the OP agrees.
MineralMan
(147,853 posts)Anything that minimizes atheism is good enough to post. Never mind its source and associations.
Jim__
(14,487 posts)The full interview is here.
An excerpt:
So, a message of humility, open-mindedness and tolerance. Other than in discussions of God, where else do you see the most urgent need for this ethos?
You know, I’m a “Rare Earth” kind of guy. I think our situation may be rather special, on a planetary or even galactic scale. So when people talk about Copernicus and Copernicanism—the ‘principle of mediocrity’ that states we should expect to be average and typical, I say, “You know what? It’s time to get beyond that.” When you look out there at the other planets (and the exoplanets that we can make some sense of), when you look at the history of life on Earth, you will realize this place called Earth is absolutely amazing. And maybe, yes, there are others out there, possibly—who knows, we certainly expect so—but right now what we know is that we have this world, and we are these amazing molecular machines capable of self-awareness, and all that makes us very special indeed. And we know for a fact that there will be no other humans in the universe; there may be some humanoids somewhere out there, but we are unique products of our single, small planet’s long history.
The point is, to understand modern science within this framework is to put humanity back into kind of a moral center of the universe, in which we have the moral duty to preserve this planet and its life with everything that we’ve got, because we understand how rare this whole game is and that for all practical purposes we are alone. For now, anyways. We have to do this! This is a message that I hope will resonate with lots of people, because to me what we really need right now in this increasingly divisive world is a new unifying myth. I mean “myth” as a story that defines a culture. So, what is the myth that will define the culture of the 21st century? It has to be a myth of our species, not about any particular belief system or political party. How can we possibly do that? Well, we can do that using astronomy, using what we have learned from other worlds, to position ourselves and say, “Look, folks, this is not about tribal allegiance, this is about us as a species on a very specific planet that will go on with us—or without us.” I think you know this message well.
I do. But let me play devil’s advocate for a moment, only because earlier you referred to the value of humility in science. Some would say now is not the time to be humble, given the rising tide of active, open hostility to science and objectivity around the globe. How would you respond to that?
This is of course something people have already told me: “Are you really sure you want to be saying these things?” And my answer is yes, absolutely. There is a difference between “science” and what we can call “scientism,” which is the notion that science can solve all problems. To a large extent, it is not science but rather how humanity has used science that has put us in our present difficulties. Because most people, in general, have no awareness of what science can and cannot do. So they misuse it, and they do not think about science in a more pluralistic way. So, okay, you’re going to develop a self-driving car? Good! But how will that car handle hard choices, like whether to prioritize the lives of its occupants or the lives of pedestrian bystanders? Is it going to just be the technologist from Google who decides? Let us hope not! You have to talk to philosophers, you have to talk to ethicists. And to not understand that, to say that science has all the answers, to me is just nonsense. We cannot presume that we are going to solve all the problems of the world using a strict scientific approach. It will not be the case, and it hasn’t ever been the case, because the world is too complex, and science has methodological powers as well as methodological limitations.
And so, what do I say? I say be honest. There is a quote from the physicist Frank Oppenheimer that fits here: “The worst thing a son of a bitch can do is turn you into a son of a bitch.” Which is profane but brilliant. I’m not going to lie about what science can and cannot do because politicians are misusing science and trying to politicize the scientific discourse. I’m going to be honest about the powers of science so that people can actually believe me for my honesty and transparency. If you don’t want to be honest and transparent, you’re just going to become a liar like everybody else. Which is why I get upset by misstatements, like when you have scientists—Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss among them—claiming we have solved the problem of the origin of the universe, or that string theory is correct and that the final “theory of everything” is at hand. Such statements are bogus. So, I feel as if I am a guardian for the integrity of science right now; someone you can trust because this person is open and honest enough to admit that the scientific enterprise has limitations—which doesn’t mean it’s weak!
...
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)Major Nikon
(36,911 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And so much fun to watch.
mitch96
(14,723 posts)guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)And he writes very well.
Some will argue that the word "spiritual" can be defined many ways, but his main point is that science is one tool that he uses in dealing with the search for knowledge.
The problem for some here is that they see science and faith as in conflict. And those who see the 2 fields as in conflict generally reject the non-overlapping magisterial argument that reconciles the 2 fields.
Thank you for the link.
DetlefK
(16,479 posts)An atheist either claims that God doesn't exist or demands proof that God exists.
It is not possible to determine via empirical evidence whether God does or doesn't exist. The scientific method is simply not capable of delivering any answer for that question because the question is outside of the mathematical and philosophical framework that the scientific method is built on. That's why atheism and science don't fit together.
God is defined as infinite, but the scientific method cannot determine whether something is infinite.
God is defined as unique, but the scientific method only works with repeatable situations.
God is defined as having free will, but the scientific method assumes that behavior is determined by fixed laws.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)and a theist. Or an atheist.
But as you noted, claims about a deity are neither provable nor disprovable.
DetlefK
(16,479 posts)The scientific method is at its core pragmatism: Whatever works is accepted as truth until it no longer works. The scientific method does not show us "truth". It shows us the best-possible guess what the truth is, working with nothing more than the limited and error-riddled information we finite beings have.
Do you know how the scientific method came to be? Evolution. Science combined occult experimentalism with mathematics and it survived where other methods (such as hermetic magic) had failed because it was capable of producing practical results.
Up until the Middle-Ages the evolutionary pressure was that a world-view must provide a stable society, and that's why religion ruled supreme since the ancient days. Then the zeitgeist and the evolutionary pressure changed and now a world-view was supposed to provide practical results. And that's why science replaced religion as the dominant world-view.
There are other methods. Flat-Earthers love the zetetic method. It's related to the scientific method but considered better because it's not "mainstream-science". But it has a barely visible yet massive math-error in its structure. Therefore the zetetic method's logic is simply invalid.
Goedel made a mathematical proof that a supreme "good" must exist, however his proof contained lots of unrealistic assumptions, such as the world being clearly divisible into good and evil.
As for belief... I don't trust belief. A logical conclusion derived via belief always depends on the subjective entity who made that proof.
EDIT: It is possible that there is a method out there that is structurally capable to allow for a finite being like us to prove/disprove an infinite being like God, but we don't know that method.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Provided the person making the claim gives sufficient evidence. Unfortunately these days people like to define their deity as being undefinable. Using the Bible it's easy to do really.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Shouldn’t impress anyone