OK, let's not get side-tracked. I accept what you say. :up: For myself, I use "believe" to describe something I think is true, but accept that others may not. I use "know" to express facts, whose truth can be demonstrated in some more or less formal way. The important point is to know whether what you say or think can be logically justified, or not. It doesn't matter if it can't, it only matters that you know this when you say whatever-it-is. IMO.

OK, let's not get side-tracked. I accept what you say. :up: For myself, I use "believe" to describe something I think is true, but accept that others may not. I use "know" to express facts, whose truth can be demonstrated in some more or less formal way. The important point is to know whether what you say or think can be logically justified, or not. It doesn't matter if it can't, it only matters that you know this when you say whatever-it-is. IMO — Pattern-chaser

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy. At least, not epistemology. You might be doing theology, in which case - you can claim to believe anything you like. Theology isn't fussy about standards of proof. Science is. And the question here is 'Is science atheistic?' Not necessarily. Science is methodologically anti-faith - and yet, cannot entirely dismiss the God hypothesis because it cannot explain the first cause, in the progression of cause and effect relationships that describe the universe. It would be the claim, "I believe God is the first cause" - that's disallowed by a scientific epistemology.

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy. — karl stone

I'm sorry, I dispute that. I think you mean "...you're not doing scientific or logical philosophy." Philosophy is about thinking, and there is more to thought than logic and evidence.

But, as you say, this thread asks whether science is inherently atheistic, which it is not. Science cannot comment on any aspect of God, because there is no evidence at all to work with.

And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point. — karl stone

Aha! A miracle has occurred! We find a point of agreement! :smile: Let's build on it...

It's of course true that agnosticism is almost always seen as a mid point between theism and atheism. However, that is not the only possible way to look at it.

The "regular agnostic" concludes that neither theists or atheists have convincing proof, and so they remain undecided as to which of these positions they will adopt for themselves. The "regular agnostic" is still within the theist vs. atheist paradigm. As example, they still accept the assumption shared by theism and atheism, that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, the "regular agnostic" just isn't sure which of the answers offered by theists or atheists is the best.

It's possible for a "regular agnostic" to reason their way deeper in to agnosticism. They can, for example, discard the theist vs. atheist paradigm entirely, being neither theist, atheist, nor between the two, but instead outside of the entire God debate framework.

As example, what I call a "fundamentalist agnostic" can decline the assumption that the goal of such investigations should be to find an answer. What if what the God inquiry has discovered is that we are ignorant, and....

That's a good thing!

Here's a little story to begin to illustrate....

You met a girl at the bus stop and she invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand with her in to her bedroom. What will make this an experience you are likely to remember the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now imagine that you marry the girl, and 37 years later are again walking in to the bedroom with her. What will make this an experience you won't remember until next Tuesday. Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance can be the enemy when we are dealing with matters of survival. Other than that, ignorance is often what keeps life fresh and makes it magical.

The fundamentalist agnostic rejects the simplistic assumption that ignorance is automatically a bad thing. In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide.

But, but, but.... You're very concerned with reality you say? Ok, great.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing.

I was always under the impression that Science (by which I think we mean investigations carried out by some sort of approved methodology) included some version of Occam's razor in its methodology. That would make it inherently atheistic because God is not a phenomenon we have yet required to make accurate predictions about those matters so far investigated. As such any existing and new theories should not include God if they can be developed using only phenomenon we have already theorised to be necessary. Hence atheistic (literally without God).

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy.
— karl stone

I'm sorry, I dispute that. I think you mean "...you're not doing scientific or logical philosophy." Philosophy is about thinking, and there is more to thought than logic and evidence. But, as you say, this thread asks whether science is inherently atheistic, which it is not. Science cannot comment on any aspect of God, because there is no evidence at all to work with. — Pattern-chaser

I accept there are important branches of philosophy - I'm thinking of political philosophy, that speak to concepts like justice, that have no material existence. It's a psychological and inter-subjective phenomena. Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?

As such any existing and new theories should not include God if they can be developed using only phenomenon we have already theorised to be necessary. Hence atheistic (literally without God). — Ciaran

What would you choose given two theories of equal predicability:

- A complex theory with no God
- A simple theory with God

Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable? — karl stone

For me: no. I believe that God exists, because I choose to. I find the concept beneficial in many different ways, which is why I make this choice. But I accept, openly and consciously, that this is wholly a faith position.

It's not really about complexity, it's about necessity. The question I would ask myself of any phenomenon is "can I explain this using forces I've already had to posit the existence of to explain previously experienced phenomena using the same method? "

Of, course, no one is obliged to use this method, but its a perfectly reasonable method for avoiding what might otherwise be an unwieldy proliferation of theories, and it happens to be (as far as I know) the method adopted by the enterprise we call Science, which is the one on question.

But to answer your question more directly, I cannot think of a theory which would be so simple on its own that the addition of God doesn't automatically make it monumentally complex.

And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.
— karl stone

Aha! A miracle has occurred! We find a point of agreement! :smile: Let's build on it...

It's of course true that agnosticism is almost always seen as a mid point between theism and atheism. However, that is not the only possible way to look at it. The "regular agnostic" concludes that neither theists or atheists have convincing proof, and so they remain undecided as to which of these positions they will adopt for themselves.

The "regular agnostic" is still within the theist vs. atheist paradigm. As example, they still accept the assumption shared by theism and atheism, that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, the "regular agnostic" just isn't sure which of the answers offered by theists or atheists is the best.

It's possible for a "regular agnostic" to reason their way deeper in to agnosticism. They can, for example, discard the theist vs. atheist paradigm entirely, being neither theist, atheist, nor between the two, but instead outside of the entire God debate framework.

As example, what I call a "fundamentalist agnostic" can decline the assumption that the goal of such investigations should be to find an answer. What if what the God inquiry has discovered is that we are ignorant, and....

That's a good thing!

Here's a little story to begin to illustrate....

You met a girl at the bus stop and she invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand with her in to her bedroom. What will make this an experience you are likely to remember the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now imagine that you marry the girl, and 37 years later are again walking in to the bedroom with her. What will make this an experience you won't remember until next Tuesday. Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance can be the enemy when we are dealing with matters of survival. Other than that, ignorance is often what keeps life fresh and makes it magical.

The fundamentalist agnostic rejects the simplistic assumption that ignorance is automatically a bad thing. In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide.

But, but, but.... You're very concerned with reality you say? Ok, great.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing. — Jake

It's important to science to admit what you are and are not able to know - and that's why I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists, or does not exist. I'm okay with not knowing. I see no reason to form an opinion. The requirement of faith is a religious one; and the unfaith of atheism is its mirror opposite. The agnostic who admits what he can and cannot know for reasons of scientific epistemology is not within that paradigm, because reality is not defined by religion or irreligion. It's defined by science!

I cannot think of a theory which would be so simple on its own that the addition of God doesn't automatically make it monumentally complex — Ciaran

The theories we have on the origin of the universe are more complex because they deliberately exclude the possibility of God.

The fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for life suggests the universe was created. Science has gone to extraordinary lengths to work around this rather awkward fact (for atheists). The cosmologists have invented models with an infinite number of randomly configured universes to try to explain fine-tuning. These models are complex and untestable.

The simpler Occam's Razor approach is to have a single universe that was fine-tuned for life by a creator. But it means excepting the possibility of God. Science needs to be open to this possibility if it's to continue to make progress IMO.

Well, again, we seem to be falling in to the trap of comparing religion and science. This incessant comparison seems to be based on the assumption that both enterprises concern themselves with facts about reality. As I've typed many times, perhaps too many, I think the situation is more accurately described this way...

1) Science concerns itself with facts about reality.

2) Religion concerns itself with our relationship with reality.

Religion is poor science, and science is poor religion. Apples and oranges.

Here's a prescription for uniting reason and religion.

In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide. — Baba Jake

It's an act of reason to recognize the reality of our ignorance, proven by at least 500 years of totally inconclusive God debate.

It's an act of religion to use the fact of our ignorance to constructively enhance our relationship with reality. Relationship. Emotional. Psychological. The reality of where human beings live.

It's an act of reason to recognize the reality of our ignorance, proven by at least 500 years of totally inconclusive God debate. — Jake

Jake - do see this as a kind of restatement of Absurdism ?

The theories we have on the origin of the universe are more complex because they deliberately exclude the possibility of God. — Devans99

The trouble is you have no defined measure of complex here. I could argue that anything with God in it seems more complex, it gets us nowhere.

The fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for life suggests the universe was created. — Devans99

No, the fact that the universe appears fine tuned for life suggests that we wouldn't be in any other universes to be thinking about it.

These models are complex and untestable. — Devans99

As is a god-created universe, so we're back to square one except that the maths by which physicists postulate these alternate universes has already proved itself to be reasonably necessary in explaining other phenomenon, God has not.

The simpler Occam's Razor approach is to have a single universe that was fine-tuned for life by a creator. — Devans99

No, because it would involve postulating the existence of a force which does not seem to be necessary, hence it is simpler to try to explain the phenomena with forces we already have had to postulate.

Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?
— karl stone

For me: no. I believe that God exists, because I choose to. I find the concept beneficial in many different ways, which is why I make this choice. But I accept, openly and consciously, that this is wholly a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing. — Jake

That's a contradictory claim. Nothing has no dimensions!

Jake - do see this as a kind of restatement of Absurdism ? — Rank Amateur

Apologies, I don't understand the question, can you clarify? That is, I don't know what Absurdism is, not being an actual philosophy but only a honking blowhard.

No, the fact that the universe appears fine tuned for life suggests that we wouldn't be in any other universes to be thinking about it. — Ciaran

The weak anthropic principle explains that the universe must be fined tuned for life; it does not explain why the universe is fined-tuned for life.

As is a god-created universe, so we're back to square one except that the maths by which physicists postulate these alternate universes has already proved itself to be reasonably necessary in explaining other phenomenon, God has not — Ciaran

There is no experimental evidence to support multiple universes. There is experimental evidence for the theory of Inflation but not for the extended theory of Eternal Inflation (multiple universes).

No, because it would involve postulating the existence of a force which does not seem to be necessary, hence it is simpler to try to explain the phenomena with forces we already have had to postulate — Ciaran

But that force is required to explain the fine tuning. Science can't just ignore the physical evidence.

The strong anthropic principle (multiple universes) just does not cut it IMO. Exactly how are all these universes meant to come out with different characteristics? They all go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all be life supporting. IE if there are multiple universes, they were all created, maybe by God.

Apologies, I don't understand the question, can you clarify? That is, I don't know what Absurdism is, not being an actual philosophy but only a honking blowhard. — Jake

Absudism is a philosophy most notably made popular by Camus - What is says in a sentence or two is, men seem to have a need to seek meaning for their existence. But there is no meaning to be found. This paradox of a need to find meaning where there is none is absurd.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/camus-and-absurdity

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality. — karl stone

I should've been clearer, sorry. I believe that God exists, in some sense, but I stop short of the more-concrete claim that God exists in the 'real' world. There is no evidence, after all. So I am happy to say what I believe, but not to make claims that might appear scientific or 'objective'. That's going too far, for me at least. :wink:

Absudism is a philosophy most notably made popular by Camus - What is says in a sentence or two is, men seem to have a need to seek meaning for their existence. But there is no meaning to be found. This paradox of a need to find meaning where there is none is absurd. — Rank Amateur

Ah, thank you.

Well, first, there is a meaning to be found, any meaning we choose to craft for ourselves.

However, I suspect you and Camus are both referring to some external meaning beyond human invention. I'm not claiming there is no such external meaning, only that no one has been able to provide convincing proof of such a meaning. Nor has anyone been able to prove that there is NOT such an external meaning. Nobody can prove anything, ie. we are ignorant.

My focus is to attempt reconcile reason and religion by realistically facing the evidence of our ignorance (reason), and using that ignorance to constructively enhance our relationship with reality (religion).

And so for instance, I suggest a shift of focus to experience, rather than interpretations of experience.

Interpretations (from any side) are mired in ignorance and conflict, a pointlessly repetitive loop leading to nothing but more of the same, proven by 500+ years of inconclusive debate. Not an act of reason. Nor an act of true religion, imho, given the extensive conflict involved.

Experience free of interpretation can be rooted in the act of observation. It could perhaps also be rooted in the act of prayer, if the prayer is characterized not by talking, asking or believing, but in listening. Pretty much the same thing as observation.

Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn". While not claiming to know exactly what he meant by that, to me it means, dying to the symbolic and being reborn in the real. Not ideas about the real. The real.

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.
— karl stone

I should've been clearer, sorry. I believe that God exists, in some sense, but I stop short of the more-concrete claim that God exists in the 'real' world. There is no evidence, after all. So I am happy to say what I believe, but not to make claims that might appear scientific or 'objective'. That's going too far, for me at least. — Pattern-chaser

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!

I must object that the scientific method does not turn off belief, but seeks to justify it. The hypothetico-deductive method can only yield justified belief, never apodictic knowledge of our hypothesis. Consider the deep belief in the Newtonian system, expressed by LaPlace's statement of determinism, which was subsequently overturned by advances in physics. If we read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions we see just how prevalent the sociology of belief is in the acceptance of scientific theory. None of this denigrates the value of science. It generally provides us the best understanding available in its area of application at any point of time. Still it is a system of belief, not knowledge in the sense of awareness of present intelligibility.

The weak anthropic principle explains that the universe must be fined tuned for life; it does not explain why the universe is fined-tuned for life. — Devans99

Right, so how does that have any bearing on the necessity of God? The universe is suitable for life, I'm not seeing the need to explain that via a creator, it can either just be that way by chance or be the only one of billions that aren't that way.

There is no experimental evidence to support multiple universes. There is experimental evidence for the theory of Inflation but not for the extended theory of Eternal Inflation (multiple universes). — Devans99

Again, I'm not sure what relevance this has to God (the topic here) the amount of experimental data doesn't have any bearing on the theory, testing comes after developing a theory. Theories about multiple universes do rely on maths and physics which have already proven themselves to be useful in models. God has not yet proven to be so useful.

But that force is required to explain the fine tuning. — Devans99

Explain why anything is required to explain fine tuning.

They all go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density — Devans99

Do they? How do you know this?

the scientific method does not turn off belief, but seeks to justify it. The hypothetico-deductive method can only yield justified belief, never apodictic knowledge of our hypothesis. — Dfpolis

Absolutely. Well said.

Thank you.

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it! — karl stone

Belief in God is also entirely useless in tuning the carburetor on a 57 Chevy convertible. So buh! Bah hum bug! Phooey! What foolishness! Etc ad nauseam infinitum!!

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!
— karl stone

Belief in God is also entirely useless in tuning the carburetor on a 57 Chevy convertible. So buh! Bah hum bug! Phooey! What foolishness! Etc ad nauseam infinitum!! — Jake

It's the epistemic standard, or lack thereof, that follows from belief in God - and pervades societal institutions, that's the problem when it comes to economic and industrial strategy - not God as such! In my view, putting the science out front is simple common sense, but philosophy requires more of us than common sense. For the argument to have any authority it has to be proven true, insofar as it can - or at least justified by sufficient reason - particularly if that argument is that we should value scientific method and understanding. Hence the need to examine critically.

Having looked at the matter, I rather suspect it's those who believe in God who object to recognition of science, because it places an undue burden on religion to justify its claims, rather than the objection of scientists to the fact that people believe all sorts of things. I certainly have no objection to what people choose to believe, but the political ill-effects of the unfounded fear that religion would have no raison d'etre without an uncontested claim to truth, need to be rectified. It seems we are sophisticated enough to encompass the contradiction.

"Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards).

"Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards). — Mariner

So you're with the 'there is no truth' squad - that band of people who undermine any scientific claim to authority with subjectivist and metaphysical relativism? The fact you're ignoring is that science works; it establishes generalized principles that can be applied over and over, and produce reliably valid results because the principle is true of some facet of reality. From the accumulation of true principles, over the past 50 years particularly, a highly coherent picture of reality has emerged - and it's that scientific picture of reality we need to take into account where necessary and appropriate to do so.

Disagree. Here are some dictionary definitions of 'atheist':

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist)

"1. someone who does not believe in any God or gods
2. someone who believes that God does not exist"
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist)

"1. (n British) a person who does not believe in God or gods
2. (in American) a person who believes that there is no God"
(SYNONYMY NOTE: an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God)
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist)

"Atheism: 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. "
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

'Atheism' certainly does not mean 'without belief'. A lot of people seem to think it means either that or 'without god', and cite the Greek roots of the word ('a-' meaning 'without', 'theism' from 'theos' meaning 'god'); but to believe that a word's current meaning is determined by its origins is to commit the etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).

As the above examples from dictionaries make clear, the current meaning of 'I am an atheist' is ambiguous between 'I do not believe there is a God' (agnostic) and 'I believe there is no God' (anti-theist). — Herg

• Ironically, the dictionaries correctly identify that atheism tends to mean lack of belief in the existence of Gods.
  
  • Your dictionaries show that primary definitions, or the no. 1 meaning tends to concern a lack of belief.
    
  • The secondary or no. 2 meaning tends to be a positive claim or belief that Gods don't exist.
• Wikipedia/atheism underlines this clearly as well: "Atheism broadly means lack of belief in Gods, more narrowly, atheism means belief that no gods exist".
  
• It is very strange that your dictionary definitions clearly show that atheism concerns lack of belief in Gods, and you claim otherwise. The evidence you gathered clearly shows that atheism is broadly, lack of belief.
  
• See Wikipedia/false dilemma. You fallaciously propose that since atheism may be known as a positive belief that God's exist, it is therefore false that atheism may also concern lack of belief. That's a false dilemma.