Science does not support Atheism, does it?

[paarsurrey1]

Science does not support Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, does it, please?
Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 19 by paarsurrey1]

There may be similarities but I don;t think it is necessary to equate subsets of theism or atheism as 'denominations'.

Denominations would be subsets of subsets of theism.

I am not equating them.Atheism is not a one body, out of confusion/doubt it is divided into divergent branches, disorders, schools of thinking; some of them claim to belong to Atheism (Agnosticism/Skepticism) from the position of ignorance while others from the position of knowledge as they claim. Right, please?
Why they be called sub-sets and why they cannot be called sects or denominations for understanding,please? Is there a language barrier/restriction, please?
Anybody, please
Regads

[Furrowed Brow]

Atheism is different*. It is a definite belief that God does not exist.

I tend to accept there is a meaningful difference between the labels weak atheism and strong atheism

An example to draw out the difference:

• Weak atheist about an undetectable cat: I have no belief there is an undetectable invisible cat that makes no noise sitting on my mat because I have been given no reason to even suspect that is ever true
  
  Strong atheist about an undetectable cat: I believe there is no undetectable invisible cat that makes no noise sitting on my mat because either
  • a) the claim is contradictory/illogical
    b) the claim cannot ever be verified or falsified
  
  

Replace the phrase undetectable cat with the word God and you have the difference between strong and weak atheism.

That is a decision. In the absence of objective evidence either way, it is quite as much a faith position as theism.

Not really. My car won't start. Is it gremlins or is not gremlins? If I take the engine apart and find the reason it won't start. Have I disproved it was gremlins or just found the damage done by gremlins?

I'm hoping we can all agree the idea of a gremlin is a human invention. If so disbelief in gremlins is not a position of faith equivalent to the position of faith assumed by anyone who insists they are real. The two points of view are not equivalent. To the atheist the same point applies to claim "there is a God" versus the claim "there is no God". Grammatically one is just the negation of the other, but grammatical opposition does not guarantee the different positions have equal evidential and logical merit. In fact from the atheist perspective they are as far apart as believing in gremlins or not believing in gremlins.

Here are the claims:

A) God intervenes in the universe and has intervened.
B) There is no God.

A and B signal how the theist and atheist think about the world. An atheist is not seeking to prove there is no God or even feels they have to. They just have no use for the God explanation.

Given any event and seeking out the causes of that events we will either find some material cause or perhaps we will not and the cause will remain a mystery. Either way the logic of where to attribute blame is exactly the same as the gremlin example. Where we find a material cause the theist can claim God intervened and where we cannot find a cause the theist can still claim God intervened. Compare this to the atheist who does not add the notion of God to their explanatory model. Where a cause is found then the atheist can put it down to that. Where causes are not found and things are a bit of a mystery the atheist can simply state they don't know what happened. However they can dismiss the God-answer on the grounds the answer God did it is no more reasonable than saying gremlins did it. We can also invoke Occam's razor and point out the God answer is not necessary. But what also appears be going on that does not impress he atheists is that the theist is really using things that go on in the world to support and explain how they think God works. Whilst it is possible to say both the theist and the atheist are interpreting the data their own way it is the theist that is importing way more into their picture of the world. To pretend that import is of equal size to the atheist's presumptions is to misrepresent the logical terrain.

[William]

[Replying to post 21 by paarsurrey1]

It's a generic thing. Denominations are subset of theists religious organisation. They may well be regarded as being subsets - in the case of Christianity, for example. The denominations of Christendom are everything from Roman Catholic to Jehovah's Witnesses and included every other Christian sect.

Other organised religious sort themselves out in a similar manner.

In relation to that, atheism isn't really organised - apart from an attempt to map out that which constitutes types of atheism which are regarded as subsets.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

As with so many questions related to comprehending god/gods, it would depend on the definition of god being considered. If the god being considered is defined as non-physical, then science can't examine the god directly.

If there are claims that this non-physical god can and does interact with the physical world, then specific claims about this god's activity could be examined using science. Of course, if the results of this examination reveal that these claims aren't justified, we couldn't conclude absolutely that this god doesn't exist, but only that it doesn't do what it is claimed to be capable of.

If we find that the claims are taking place, it would be improper scientifically to conclude that the defined god is the cause of these claims because science can not detect a non-physical god.

Science can examine claims about a specific god's activities, but can only determine if they are happening or not. It cannot determine the god's involvement if the god is defined as non-physical. No signs of activity wouldn't guarantee non-existence, but would be consistent with such a conclusion.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

Tcg:
As with so many questions related to comprehending god/gods, it would depend on the definition of god being considered. If the god being considered is defined as non-physical, then science can't examine the god directly.

We shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.

The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

[39:65] Say, ‘Is it other gods than Allah that you bid me worship, O ye ignorant ones?’
[39:66] And verily it has been revealed to thee as unto those before thee: ‘If thou attribute partners to God, thy work shall surely go vain and thou shalt certainly be of the losers.’
[39:67] Aye, worship Allah and be among the thankful.
[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh ... 9&verse=67

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True-God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

Regards

[marco]

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

The same would have been said of Zeus and Thor; study of gods would be impossible for humans except in studying mythology. That is because gods are fiction. Yahweh shouts too much and his theatricality in sending "plagues" on Egypt suggests his poor fictional make-up. Allah is worse: he is the creation of an Arab trader and he was imperfectly invented from Jewish and Christians stories. Muhammad remembered a lot and sewed Allah together. The ridiculous bits of the Quran (beating wives and green couches in paradise) show that Allah is Muhammad's creation. Why on earth would science bother to get involved in fictions? It would be an embarrassment.

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

Why on earth would science bother to get involved in fictions? It would be an embarrassment.

Isn't it the observation of the OP that science doesn't support atheism?

It certainly seems a sensible enough statement "Why on earth would science bother to get involved in fictions" but in that, clearly atheist do...thus the statement of observation;

"Science does not support Atheism, does it?"

I think the concern is that people calling themselves atheists often enough try and use science to argue against theism, even those fictional aspects...so, would I be right to take from your statement that if science wouldn't bother to get involved in fictions and how that would be embarrassing for science, then some atheists who don't mind arguing science against fiction are happy to wear that 'embarrassment', because they are not representing science but atheism (or forms of atheism)? Should they not be 'embarrassed' using science to argue against theism?

Or does you comment mean something else?

[marco]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

Why on earth would science bother to get involved in fictions? It would be an embarrassment.

Isn't it the observation of the OP that science doesn't support atheism?


Or does you comment mean something else?

My statement was in reply to paarsurrey's:


"The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it. "


I am saying there is no proper faculty of science dealing with God because science does not involve itself with studying fictions.

If atheists use calculus, physics, biology or whatever to argue they are not extending the boundaries of science through study; they are using scientific knowledge to make a point. They may use these areas wrongly, just as people regularly abuse the rules of grammar, but one is entitled to try to use, however imperfectly, whatever tools one finds. This line has nothing to do with what I said.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

We shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.

The question under consideration is science and therefore I discussed science. Until any other method can be shown to be consistently reliable, I'll stick with science.

The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

If this god has no material or physical or spiritual form, then it doesn't exist. I can agree with that conclusion.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh ... 9&verse=67

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

I clearly expressed the fact that if god interacts with the real world, that interaction could be examined by science.

Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

I already addressed this.

Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True-God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

It is not ethical to make claims that can't be verified by any means.

Regards

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 24 by Tcg]

paarsurrey1 - We shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.

Tcg - The question under consideration is science and therefore I discussed science. Until any other method can be shown to be consistently reliable, I'll stick with science.

paarsurrey1 - The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

Tcg- If this god has no material or physical or spiritual form, then it doesn't exist. I can agree with that conclusion.

paarsurrey1 - http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh ... 9&verse=67

paarsurrey1 - The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

Tcg- I clearly expressed the fact that if god interacts with the real world, that interaction could be examined by science.

paarsurrey1 - Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

Tcg - I already addressed this.

paarsurrey1 - Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True-God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

Tcg- It is not ethical for you to make claims that can't be verified by any means.