Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.
Last edited by Diogenes on Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #41

Post by Purple Knight »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:01 pmIt is ridiculous for you to define what it is to be an atheist, especially when you have been corrected so many times already. Your claim is as silly as claiming that an adult is denying the existence of Santa Claus. Will you correct your thinking, or continue in your straw-maning ignorance? Readers will take note.
The main thing I take note of is that the religious aren't the only ones trying to define the bounds of the side to which they do not belong.

It might be because there is one line between the religious and the irreligious and we're always going to argue over it because everyone is always trying to place it to make their own side look most reasonable.

I tend to think lacks belief in gods is overly reasonable, making it so that atheists essentially can't be wrong, because we've baked "but I might be wrong" into our base assertion.

Is there any such equal definition of religious person, who has baked, "but I might be wrong" into his religious beliefs? This is a great post by Benchwarmer on the subject.
benchwarmer wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 3:48 pm 1. I lack belief in gods. I also claim (assert knowledge) that no gods exist. Gnostic Atheist
2. I lack belief in gods. I make no claims about whether a god may or may not exist. Agnostic Atheist
3. I have a belief in a god(s). I make no claims about the god(s) I believe in existing. Agnostic Theist
4. I have a belief in a god(s). I also claim (assert knowledge) that a god(s) exists. Gnostic Theist
So are there really any 3's?

I differ from Holmes only in the fact that he combines the middle two, because I think that if you're intelligent, maybe covers waaaaay too much of the board and almost everyone is just agnostic. Otherwise this post is pretty insightful.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:44 pm God either exists or does not exist and one can either hold a belief in either of these or not.

Therefore the following four propositions can be defined (and these are the only four propositions that can be defined given the binary nature of the terms).

I do hold the belief that God exists.
I do NOT hold the belief that God exists.
I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist.
I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist.

These can only be paired as follows (eliminating contradictory pairings)

1. I do hold the belief that God exists AND I do not hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Theist)
2. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Uncommitted)
3. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Atheist)

The "modern" atheist can only (that is, these are the only logical options) adopt 2. or 3. as their position, these are the only two (non-contradictory) positions that include "I do not hold the belief that God exists".

If they adopt 2. then their position is identical to "I do not know if God exists" and warrants no special term or bastardization of the existing term "atheist", saying "I don't know" or "I am uncommitted" is all that's needed, no fancy word play or Emperor's new clothes or other mumbo jumbo.

This position - uncommitted - is no more at odds with the theist than it is the atheist, it no more aligned with either of these two other positions, both the atheist and the theist are obliged to provide a rational argument for the beliefs they hold any beliefs they do not hold are completely irrelevant.

If they adopt 3. then their position is identical to the established meaning of "atheism" and they do assert "I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist" in which case they need to provide a rational argument for that belief.

This is the hard reality of this, this is where clumsily "redefining" atheism in this vacuous way is illogical and absurd yet the likes of Dawkins, Krauss et-al are simply not competent to understand this.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #42

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #41]

I don't know why this issue gets complicated so often. Take everyone and line them all up. Draw a line in the sand in front of everyone. Then have all those who believe in god/gods step across the line. All those who didn't cross the line are atheists. Those who did are theists. It's astonishingly straightforward.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #43

Post by Difflugia »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:47 pmThe main thing I take note of is that the religious aren't the only ones trying to define the bounds of the side to which they do not belong.

It might be because there is one line between the religious and the irreligious and we're always going to argue over it because everyone is always trying to place it to make their own side look most reasonable.
It's not even just which side "looks" reasonable, but how to frame the positions such that defensible arguments can be made.
Purple Knight wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 10:47 pmI tend to think lacks belief in gods is overly reasonable, making it so that atheists essentially can't be wrong, because we've baked "but I might be wrong" into our base assertion.
I have a hunch that part of the problem is that the argument isn't usually atheism vs. theism, but atheism vs. Christianity and those aren't opposite positions. Even if my atheist position is no belief in any gods, I also have a non-Christian position that is that the Christian god doesn't exist. Whether or not there are some unknown gods out there, the god that is presented by most Christians is practically impossible and perhaps logically so. Biblical literalism, inerrancy, and a god that intervenes in human affairs, yet remains undetectable are positions that are much more difficult to defend than the notion that there might be some god somewhere.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #44

Post by Eloi »

Tcg wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:33 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #41]

I don't know why this issue gets complicated so often. Take everyone and line them all up. Draw a line in the sand in front of everyone. Then have all those who believe in god/gods step across the line. All those who didn't cross the line are atheists. Those who did are theists. It's astonishingly straightforward.


Tcg
Exactly: it is just a position.

The problem begins when some atheists try to make others believe that believers are unscientific or, without saying so, stupid.

A disbelief in God can be just an impulse for no obvious reason, and believing can be a position based on reasonable arguments.

The solution is to start talking to each other, without judging the other by what he considers to be evidence... Ultimately, atheists don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist. If God exists, those who serve him have a great advantage, if not (as atheists think) those who serve God lose nothing. It is the atheists who are in the worst position. :(

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #45

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:20 pmThe problem begins when some atheists try to make others believe that believers are unscientific or, without saying so, stupid.
If nobody is saying so, why do you infer it?
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:20 pmThe solution is to start talking to each other, without judging the other by what he considers to be evidence...
We're judging the evidence, not you. The evidence is of extremely poor quality. Please don't take it personally.
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:20 pmUltimately, atheists don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist.
I don't have evidence that leprechauns exist and don't believe in them. Should I treat the lack of evidence for gods differently than I treat the lack of evidence for leprechauns? Or should I believe in leprechauns just in case?
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:20 pmIf God exists, those who serve him have a great advantage, if not (as atheists think) those who serve God lose nothing. It is the atheists who are in the worst position. :(
Pascal's wager?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #46

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #41]
These can only be paired as follows (eliminating contradictory pairings)

1. I do hold the belief that God exists AND I do not hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Theist)
2. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do NOT hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Uncommitted)
3. I do NOT hold the belief that God exists AND I do hold the belief that God does NOT exist. (Atheist)

The "modern" atheist can only (that is, these are the only logical options) adopt 2. or 3. as their position, these are the only two (non-contradictory) positions that include "I do not hold the belief that God exists".
...
This is the hard reality of this, this is where clumsily "redefining" atheism in this vacuous way is illogical and absurd yet the likes of Dawkins, Krauss et-al are simply not competent to understand this.
This was presented by SH to try and force his own definition of the word atheist to mean a definite denial of the existence of gods. "Uncommitted" is equivalent to being 50/50, on the fence, a pure agnostic, while being atheist is a claim that gods absolutely do not exist rather than simply a lack of belief that they exist. He allows for no degree of being convinced towards one side or the other. It is either 50/50 (uncommitted), definite belief that gods do exist, or definite claim that they do not exist (his definition of atheist).

For me and other atheists that I know, the lack of any convincing evidence for gods is what drives the opinion and the only opening in the door is that the existence of gods has not been proven, 100%, to be false. It is similar to an unsolved math problem like the Reimann Hypothesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

Extensive computer analysis has never shown an exception (ie. s does equal 1/2 for all of the nontrivial zeros found so far) and the universe of tests is so large that it is believed that the conjecture is correct. But it has not been proven to be correct in the mathematical sense of a formal proof. So there is a small but nonzero probability that the conjecture is false.

I don't believe that gods exist because all of the attempts to identify such beings as actually existing in the real world have failed. But without absolute proof that gods don't exist I cannot be placed in SH's category 3, and category 2 of being uncommitted is not strong enough. He's simply trying to force his own meaning of the word atheist (absolute denial of gods) via an incomplete logic argument, and further commented that anyone who uses any alternate definition is clumsy, vacuous and incompetent.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #47

Post by Eloi »

Difflugia wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:37 pm (...)
I am not taking anything personal ... You don't have that power over me.
You don't have any "evidence"; you are just trying to invalidate other's evidence, when you simply can not, cause is not your evidence, but other's.
Leprechauns have not part in human origin, life or future ... God does.
I do not know who is that Pascal, and he is not here now.
Do not take it personal, please. Have a great day.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #48

Post by Diogenes »

Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:58 pm
Leprechauns have not part in human origin, life or future ... God does.
Leprechauns have exactly as much part, demonstratively, in human origin as "God." And to which make-believe God do you refer? There are thousands of them. Gods and Leprechauns have at least one thing in common, both are fictional characters made up by people.
Eloi wrote:The problem begins when some atheists try to make others believe that believers are unscientific or, without saying so, stupid.
The implication is not that believers are stupid, but that they are grossly inconsistent. They only use science when they think it supports some Biblical point of view. They challenge science when it suggests the Earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a fact to the same degree the Earth being round is a fact.

For example, Otseng recently wrote that whenever science does not have a definitive explanation for an event we should presume a supernatural one. This appears to be an unjustifiable bias since in the past most phenomena previously attributed to gods, now have rational, natural explanations... and NONE have been explained by "God did it."
Why keep betting on the God Hypothesis when it has been proved wrong thousands or millions of times and has never been validated by science even once?

But the real problem is when you ONLY use scientific findings when it supports your view of the supernatural, that is an anti-science point of view. It shows contempt for science.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #49

Post by Eloi »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:41 pm (...)
The implication is not that believers are stupid, but that they are grossly inconsistent. They only use science when they think it supports some Biblical point of view. They challenge science when it suggests the Earth is billions of years old, that evolution is a fact to the same degree the Earth being round is a fact.

(...) the real problem is when you ONLY use scientific findings when it supports your view of the supernatural, that is an anti-science point of view. It shows contempt for science.
This post shows exactly what I've been saying before. Thanks for that.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #50

Post by Difflugia »

Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:58 pmYou don't have any "evidence";
For the existence of gods? You're right as long as we qualify evidence for a god to mean that the god offers more explanatory power for the evidence than any other made-up explanation. Otherwise, there are still cat toys on my floor. They're in different spots than they were yesterday, so that's evidence that God moved them. It's competing with much more likely explanations, but it's technically evidence.
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:58 pmyou are just trying to invalidate other's evidence, when you simply can not, cause is not your evidence, but other's.
If the argument is a scientific one, how does evidence belong to one person or another? If your argument isn't scientific, why do you object to being told that your argument is unscientific?
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:58 pmLeprechauns have not part in human origin, life or future ... God does.
You have no evidence that leprechauns weren't involved in human origins, right?
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:58 pmI do not know who is that Pascal, and he is not here now.
Pascal's wager at Wikipedia
Eloi wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:58 pmDo not take it personal, please. Have a great day.
I won't and I will, respectively. Thanks.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply