I generally like, "I don't know," as my go to answer. — Tom Storm

So you are agnostic, more or less. There are two types of agnostics: those who don’t know and those who don’t care. I would assume you care somewhat, as the existence of God certainly affects your life. Within not knowing, you can say that you don’t know, or that it is impossible to know. However, these are actually indistinguishable from each other, because we can not be fully certain of anything. It will always be impossible to objectively know, so it is more a matter of, Do you know God? That is, do you believe there is a god or not? And the answer to that has an objective effect on your life and how you will live it.

If you are interested in the Fine-Tuning argument:
Look up “fine tuning argument” and find the Stanford page. Should be plato.stanford.edu or something like that. It holds a very detailed account of the argument. Having looked at that website, I know that your simple refutation is not enough, as well as my simple explanation is not nearly enough.

Yes, slap yourself in the face. You will quickly see cause and effect. Seriously, you are questioning logic itself. — ButyDude

I don't think that's logic, more like metaphysics. I guess causation must have a cause? Notice how neatly ampliative such arguments become. Composition fallacy.

Yes, everything has a cause, and every cause has an effect. That is the basis of the argument, and this was discovered long before this argument was created. Everything in the universe has a cause, but what caused the universe?

I also like to think about the property of Conservation of Energy, stating that Energy cannot be created or destroyed. How could energy not be created or destroyed, but the universe also be finite? It implies that something outside of the universe caused energy to exist.

These arguments aren’t meant to show that God must exist, especially because they don’t. Nothing will empirically prove God to exist. But it shows that belief in God is rational and reasonable, and is a huge step towards faith for non-believers.

So you are agnostic, more or less. — ButyDude

No. These days many atheists would spell it out as follows. Gnosticism goes to knowledge, atheism goes to belief. I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. In other words, I don't know whether or not there are gods, however I see no good reason to believe. It's pretty straight forward. But in the end labels don't really matter all that much.

I know that your simple refutation is not enough, as well as my simple explanation is not nearly enough. — ButyDude

I haven't refuted an argument since an argument has not been made. But I hear you. It can get complicated. Most theistic arguments I have heard (and I have been reading and listening to them for 35 years, along with extensive history in the Theosophical Society and growing up in the Baptist tradition) are (as I see it) basic fallacies - appeals to ignorance or fallacies from incredulity. But in the end, where you sit on this matter is based on how you interpret the inferences. Everyone is different. Argument is fairly pointless.

I think that the arguments in support of gods are just like belief in gods itself. You either believe or you don't. I don't. But as I have said a couple of times, this fits better with a range of other threads already commenced on the site.

I do not argue that it is irrational to believe in god. I do not argue that believers are mentally ill. Some atheists like some believers are shrill and fanatical.

I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. In other words, I don't know whether or not there are gods, however I see no good reason to believe. — Tom Storm

This makes you an agnostic that is not concerned with God (does not care). “I don’t know… I see no good reason to believe.” I hesitate to say “don’t care”, because you obviously have given this an immense amount of thought. It does not make you atheist, because atheist entails that you actively believe that there is no God. Lots of people say they are atheist when they are not actually, because they don’t know the difference, and this has changed the popular meaning of what atheist means.

There are lots of good reasons to believe in God. Belief in God is necessary for moral realism and objective morality, and human dignity. I would hope that you are not a moral relativist. Also, it is very important to note that belief in God should entail a community, or Church. It is extremely difficult to be a single, individual person and believe in God. The role of the Church is to organize the followers of God in prayer, community, and action. It is through organization only that great charities and Churches across the world provide food, clothing, shelter, vaccines, medicine, and even surgery, to the billions of people around the globe.

This website can answer questions about faith: https://www.catholicscomehome.org/your-questions/catholic-resources/

Ha! Nice try. I’m not buying into your shtick. This thread’s about science and religion. Cheers.

Noooooo!!! Lol.

Catholicism as a faith does embrace science quite strongly, and unlike most other faiths. Seriously, Catholicism may hold answers to any questions you have. They have about 2000 years of recorded theology which could definitely answer questions better than other faiths.

Thanks for the conversation.

atheist entails that you actively believe that there is no God — ButyDude

The activity is continually thinking or vocalizing “I believe there is no God”? :snicker:

There are lots of good reasons to believe in God. Belief in God is necessary for moral realism and objective morality, and human dignity. — ButyDude

That is a very good reason to not believe because it inhibits moral developmental reasoning in followers and allows some rando religious authority to dictate what is moral and what is not.

It is extremely difficult to be a single, individual person and believe in God. — ButyDude

Should it be easy? Most worthwhile things in life are challenging. If following is easy then perhaps it is rather worthless.

The role of the Church is to organize the followers of God in prayer, community, and action. It is through organization only that great charities and Churches across the world provide food, clothing, shelter, vaccines, medicine, and even surgery, to the billions of people around the globe. — ButyDude

I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. — Tom Storm

I personally don't attach a label to my "atheism", e.g. agnostic. In fact, I don't even put officially the label "atheist" on myself. I simply don't believe in the existence of God or gods, as these terms are commonly used. That's all.

Atheism is mainly an absence of belief in the existence of God, any god. (From Greek "a-theos" (= without god).) All other kinds of atheism are illogical or fallacies. E.g. "positive atheism" is a belief and affirmation that God doesn't exist. Which is a fallacy and esp. of the type of circular reasoning. How can one talk about, much less prove that something does not exist, the existence of which cannot be proven, and worse, if one already believes that it does not exist? That's kind of stupid, isn't it? E.g. Is there any meaning for me to prove that there are no angels flying in the heaven or existing among us, and so on? Besides, how can I? I just don't believe in the existence of angels. That's all.

So, "gnostic atheism" is baloneys. Gnostic theism, as well.

A true beilef in God is a personal affair. It is based on personal experience(s).

Exactly. The physical realm is where proof and logic reside. The metaphysical is where belief and faith rule.

Thus why "proofs" of the existence (or nonexistence) of gods are nonsensical on their face.

Right. Why all that sweat?

Men who were incredibly influential in science like Roger Bacon were active participants of the church. — Isaiasb

Just to mention from the OP. In Bacon's time people were religious. Rarely were people atheist. That science and atheism would hold hands came only far later.

Science disproves God. — praxis

How?

Science is objective. Religion is subjective. I think even in Antiquity people made the difference of the Mind and reasoning and the heart and issues of belief. The Bible (just to give one example of how one religion approaches this) is pretty clear about this difference. Or is it that to find Jesus you have to use your brain and think?

I haven't claimed that.

This is how that line appears in context:

Science undermines religion and the belief in God.

Science disproves God.

Do you guys actually think these two claims are the same? — praxis

I was addressing Wayfarer's misrepresentation of Dawkins and crew.

Ok, now I got your point.

Well, there's a lot to say about Dawkins view. I think in a nutshell it is that you don't have an objective answer to subjective questions.

To be perfectly clear, Dawkins does not claim that "Science disproves God."

Wayfarer "paraphrased" him saying that, presumably to disparage Dawkins and others and make them appear irrational. Because that's how the moderators on this forum roll. :roll:

Why? Because the Modern religious live in a soviety that holds science and technology in high regard, therefore logic has more credibility that faith (even among the faithful) thus the draw towards proofs.

To be perfectly clear, Dawkins does not claim that "Science disproves God." — praxis

Didn't think he would have had said that. But what Dawkins says that there's no need for religion, and simply those questions on ethics that science cannot answer can be vaguely answered by general "humanity". Don't have a direct quote, but his general idea is this I think.

Sceince 200 years ago believed in "bad blood" and draining this blood from people who were sick. Science is never stable and unmoving. Christianity has been reformed but the core values have never changed.

In Bacon's time people were religious. — ssu

Science is objective. Religion is subjective.

But how religious were the people in Bacon's time? Like modern American Christians, or like old-fashioned Catholics in traditionally Catholic countries?

I grew up with the latter. As such, it is my opinion that they think of religion as objective and public. Certainly not subjective.

Or is it that to find Jesus you have to use your brain and think?

It's not like people generally chose their religion. They were born and raised into it, it was normally not a matter of choice, nor was it perceived as a matter choice. (Religious people in traditionally religious countries seem to tend to be skeptical of adult converts.)

I don't think the question is clear. It's so broad as to be virtually meaningless. Which science versus which religion? — Tom Storm

There is a general sense in which religion can be classed as faith-based, and science as evidence-based or it is a common trope that religion perpetuates superstition and science attempts to do away with it; but those are perhaps un-nuanced pictures.

Even if that were accepted the question remains as to what is meant by "versus": is it merely meant to signify a distinction between different approaches or is it meant to signify that the two must be adversaries? I guess on the view that religion is superstitious whereas science seeks to abolish superstition they would necessarily be seen as adversarial.

Yes, you're essentially describing my position on the claims of religion - as someone who prefers empiricism over rationalism or faith, I do tend to privilege evidence. My personal judgement (and others can do differently) is that I see no good evidence to accept religious claims about reality - the mystical ones are vague and barely matter (to me) and the specific claims - eg Christ rose from the dead or an angel spoke to Mohammad - for my money are BS. For me, religion seems to be an aesthetic appreciation of the world through a specific lens which seeks unity, truth and meaning (via some often charming mythic narratives). Who can blame people for trying to achieve this?

But do these systems contradict? Not especially, if they are setting out to do different things. I'm not sure I would go as far as Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, but I do think this frame has some merit.

But in the end, the question of contradiction or worse, conflict, all depends upon how militant and extreme the science or religion is and what each one seeks to action in the world and by what means.

In one way the answer has to be "Of course they contradict each other!" Received religions posit a creating God who is the first mover, the first cause. All things were made. Science posits a material universe whose material processes, over very long periods of time, formed everything that is."

In another way, the difference between religion and science is that a creator God employs material processes to create everything that is. Fiat Lux = the Big Bang. "DNA is the language of God" somebody said.

A believer, like all other people, can hold two contradictory ideas together in the same place. "God created the universe" on the one hand, and "Life is the result of the way chemicals and physics interact." So one can sing the beloved hymn that starts out...

Of the Father’s love begotten,
ere the worlds began to be,
He is Alpha and Omega,
He the Source, the Ending He,
of the things that are, that have been,
and that future years shall see
evermore and evermore!

but continue to believe that we live in a chilly deterministic universe governed by physical laws.

Some people will have no truck with religion and there is no reconciliation possible. Other people will have no truck with science, and there is no reconciliation possible with them either.

Of the two poles of opinion, the exclusively religious view which rejects science is clearly the most dangerous. When one throws out the bath water of science, one also throws out the baby of logic. The world ceases to be a place to which analytical thinking can be applied. Throwing out the bath water of science also shreds one's ability to think clearly about politics and society. Religion without grounding in the secular world (despite enjoining us to "judge not lest you be judged") tends to be pretty judgmental and is usually guided by a collection of reactionary ideas.

:100:

I grew up with the latter. As such, it is my opinion that they think of religion as objective and public. Certainly not subjective. — baker

Agree. I think the majority of the world’s believers probably hold such a view. In my experience, even those who think their holy book is largely allegorical still hold that the rest of us should accept those allegories as critical and transformational and essentially true.

, sure, well, sort of.
The scientific methodologies model cumulating evidence.
Because we don't start out knowing it all.
Hence electricity in your home, near-realtime worldwide communication over the Internet using complex electronic devices, GPS helping us navigate, cholera control, clean water, exploring Mars with rovers, fair treatments of schizophrenia, diabetes no longer a death sentence, helping paralyzed talk and move, ...
The most successful epistemic endeavor in human history.
As to Christianity, I guess, say, the 10 commandments have never changed?
Ethics and science work differently, though.
Apparently, Sunnism and Shaivism (among others) are competitors, if you will; can't all be right, but could all be wrong.
Science moves on regardless.