Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:12 am
[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #2
again, they say that Science is a religion ("scientism")
Science and "scientism" should not be confused. Scientism is the belief that science offers absolute irrefutable truths and is, in that sense, very much like a dogmatic religion, whereas science is always open to self-correction (the only scientific discipline which offers absolute proofs is mathematics).
Evilooshun - an atheistic god -denying Belief that everything popped out of nothing for no reason, just by chance.
I don't believe that everything popped out of nothing for no reason just by chance, but I don't consider myself an "Evilooshun-ist".
I agree. Science is a discipline. Scientism is - as you say - a claim that science has a Dogma rather than the reliable results of investigation. As I said - those who claim science is Dogmatic are refuted by the accusation that 'science is always changing its' mind'. Which means that science is willing to change (or revise) current models of reality in the light of new information. But these don't alter the Core Doctrines
shall we say. We may find out that Pluto is not a planet but an extra planetary object, but we won't discover tat the earth rather than the sun is the centre of the solar system. Nor, no matter what we find out about sub atomic particles, will we have to drop the idea that atoms and molecules are the building -blocks of what we call 'matter'. Despite relativity, quantum, indeterminacy and even a (possible) holographic universe, Newtonian physics are still valid and used as the basis of physics.
Scientism, at best is a projection of Theist thinking onto the Opposition and is rather amusing as (like the accusation of atheism being a religion) is religion Faith and Dogma is so great, why it is tossed out as an accusation?
Well we know why. It is a rival and wrong religion. So I say that even if science (and atheism) is a religion, Church and Dogma, it is better in line with evidence and reason than other religions.
'There are many religions; there is only one science'.
Of course the Universe (or Universe) had an origin, just as Kalam
says, and it was for Reasons and while not random chance, it was not planned, or I see no reason to suppose that it was. The accusatory pseudo -definition of 'evilooshum' (which I have heard used by Creationists) is aimed at the concept (that Creationism has in mind) that ignores known physical processes and sees results as random happenstance, which is not what science says, though it has not shown (and Theism has not convincingly shown) that there is an intent and plan behind it.
Indeed, that Faith - based misconception skews theist thinking from the start as it assumes an intended objective and rightly calculates that obtaining that objective by accident is astronomical odds against But (like a hole not being designed to fit a puddle, but the water adapting to the hole) results coming out however they happen to come out is odds 1-1.
It is (as is usually the case) the a priori
assumption of a planning Mind that skews all their arguments, logic and calculations from the start, so all their arguments are flawed from the get -go.