Random blog about atheism

[sparrowtm]

The text below is the result of a random websearch for "atheism vs creationism". I decided to post it here, because of the bolded sentence below. At
least for me, that is a new one.

Link

What is the problem with Atheism?

Atheism is more than just a problem for faith. It fails to qualify as science. A good science pursues naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. The tradition of biology begun with Charles Darwin in 1859 and running down to the present time is good science. Darwinism provides the most adequate natural explanations for the evolution of one species out of a previous species. As good science, it avoids saying anything about God’s action in the world. Because science tells us how creatures act with regard to one another, we do not expect science to say anything directly about the creator. For a scientist to conclude that there is no God - which is the conclusion of the atheist - is simply unwarranted by the science. Atheism fails to be scientific, because science deals with the world of creatures, not the realm of the creator.

Charles Darwin, who gave us the concept of evolution as “descent with modification,” was no atheist. He belonged to the Church of England; and he entertained agnostic ideas. Darwin has drawn followers who are atheists, however. Thomas Huxley in the late 19th century used evolutionary theory to argue for naturalism without belief in God. In our own era, Richard Dawkins of Oxford writes in his book, The Blind Watchmaker (Norton 1987), “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (p.6). We believe this is a colossal error in logic. Darwin ’s model of evolution is good science; but good science does not require atheism. There is no step in the scientific method that says “at this point, abandon belief in God.”

If i get it right, the author´s logic goes like this:

1.) Atheism is bollocks because it does not follow the rules of the scientific method, while it really should.
2.) Instead, atheism should deny the existence of deities.... without... mentioning deities, because science should STFU about religion.
3.) In conclusion, because atheism is no science and shouldn´t be a logical conclusion of any scientific research whatsoever, it is bad style to be a scientist and also be an atheist?


I may sound confused, and really I am. Could someone explain to me what the hell the author is trying to say? I honestly can´t understand him.
Since when is atheism a science, what does Darwins alleged religious affiliation have to do with anything, what would he prefer atheists to do?
Why is science limited to the world of creatures? What is going on here?

[Sinewmire]

Seems to be saying "Atheism isn't scientific because you can't categorically state there isn't a god, therefore it's unscientific to not believe in god, also, Darwin said so."

Atheism, or at least Agnosticism is scientific because there is no shred of evidence for any sort of God. If there is no evidence, why would there be a god? The evidence for God is the same as the evidence for Vishnu, Shiva etc. If it could be any one of them, why would there be any of them? I suppose there's a case for saying "we don't know everything, there could be, etc" but unless there's evidence there is no reason whatsoever for what we don't understand being God.

It doesn't matter what Darwin believed - Science doesn't rely upon an appeal to Authority as Religions tend to, and it's wrong, too - Darwin was certainly at least an Agnostic later in his life.

[Alyeska]

Atheism isn't active disblief in god. Atheism is simply no belief in god. His logic falls apart. An Atheist need not actively believe against God. An Atheist merely can not believe or can say "the evidence does not support god".

[sparrowtm]

Well of course, but he treats atheism like it is a science, and not just the absence of one´s belief in god. That is what his whole article is based on: atheism is bad science, because good science wouldn´t dare mentioning the existence/non-existence of deities at all. But atheism is not at all science. Only a possible and almost inevitable outcome of scientific thinking.

[Twoyboy]

He's trying to say that he's a pseudo academic douche-nozzle who likes to spew drivel about things he pretends to understand.

As good science, it avoids saying anything about God’s action in the world.

There's a huge, unfounded assumption in there. The role of science is simply to explain and describe natural phenomena. If he is implying that there is a god who does or did once intervene in the "natural world", then this is indeed the domain of science to measure and explain this intervention.

He seems to confuse the scientific absence of god from Darwin's theories with believing all good science should exclude god, without the realisation that the absence of god from these theories is actually evidence of the non-existence of any god or gods.

Basically he's a standard religious apologist who started with his conclusion, applied some faulty and unoriginal logic to it and fooled himself into thinking he'd shot down all those nasty atheists.

If only I had a dollar for every time we saw this.

[loomer]

I've always found it interesting how they go 'Darwin said he was wrong, and believed in God!' in these debates. They don't realize that we don't care about the individual views of prominent figures involved so much as the actual evidence. Maybe it has to do with the fact that just about every religion out there involves placing faith, be it blind or otherwise, in a 'prophet' or originator figure?

[Axiomatic]

Atheism also fails as an architectural style and a method of cooking pasta. The reason for this is because IT IS NOT A GODDAMN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, A METHOD OF COOKING PASTA OR A SCIENCE.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Atheism also fails as an architectural style and a method of cooking pasta. The reason for this is because IT IS NOT A GODDAMN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, A METHOD OF COOKING PASTA OR A SCIENCE.

Yes, of course atheism is not a science and neither it is necessary to be an atheist in order to be a good scientist. For the latter you merely need to be a methodological naturalist. That said, if you are a methodological naturalist, it is not really rational to believe in any credal religion, but you can still be a good scientist in your own field even if you do. Mostly such behavior is based on mental compartmentalization. Then again, not all scientist are good philosophers, either, so it does not seem to bother them much.

Nevertheless, I would still say that the only rational positions for a scientist are deism, agnosticism or atheism. Deism is still possible, because the god of deism does not actually influence the observable reality in any way.

[Samuel]

The tradition of biology begun with Charles Darwin in 1859 and running down to the present time is good science.

I take exception to that. Lammark may have been wrong, but proposing a mechanism is a step above "just because". The classification of all living things also counts as biology and good science. It helped lay the eventual ground work that evolutionary theory would be built upon.

As good science, it avoids saying anything about God’s action in the world.

Actually it says that God is not needed to explain the emergence of new species. And since it adequately covers the rate of emergence, God does not create new species.

Because science tells us how creatures act with regard to one another, we do not expect science to say anything directly about the creator.

That is a specific subset of biology. If you look at how reality works, than it does start to say wheter the universe is created or can come naturally.

He belonged to the Church of England; and he entertained agnostic ideas.

Agnosticism was coined by Huxley in 1859. I'm not sure exactly what he is talking about here. As for attendence in the Church of England, that isn't a surprise. It is worth noting that England stopped blatantly screwing over the Catholics in 1829. They were... less friendly to atheists.

There is no step in the scientific method that says “at this point, abandon belief in God.”

It does require the abandonment of many different forms of belief in God though- any that include creation of all life, creation of the earth, creation of the universe (you can still have it designed the system, but the universe itself has the big bang), etc.

[Razor One]

The problem with the article is that it's attacking one specific flavour of Atheism, Hard Atheism specifically.

Hard Atheism says "There is no god", Soft Atheism says "There is no proof of god".

Given that the entire premise for his argument only attacks one specific subset of Atheism, we can assume that Atheism is quite safe for now.

Furthermore, if we are to apply this persons logic to Hard Atheism then it should also apply to religion as well.

Hard Atheism makes the claim "There is no god". Religion makes the claim that "Deity/Force/Vodoo/Zombie Jesus/Quantum Magnetism X is responsible!"

If Hard Atheism is subject to the scientific method and found to be wanting, what would occur if one placed Religion under a similar scope? They both make positive claims that can neither be proven nor disproven. Neither has any place attempting to dictate theory.

Soft Atheism is the way to be

[Covenant]

Actually, as stated, the article's problem is that it's making no sense. Hard or soft atheistic thought, if you choose to call it that, have no claim towards being scientific.

I don't think non-theists need to start dividing up into camps, however. It doesn't serve anyone. Agnostics choose to sit on the fence, as it were, but anyone without religion is basically on the same team. It's also a bit of unhealthy fence-sitting to claim one's brand of thought is superior because it claims to be about evidence, when really, if it's evidence you want you can go and look yourself. Even a cursory look will find religions based on myths which are based on a poor understanding of the world and good ol' human creativity.

So if the foundation for godly actions are proven mundane, the scripture that is written about them proven fallible, and the people who profess their insight proven duplicitous, then you've gone from merely saying "I see no evidence for God's existance" to adding "...and I see no basis for the concept of Gods as religions would have us understand them," as well as the additional, "...nor do I see the need to assume the existence of an unknown form of deity given there is no evidence for that either." Or at least you should.

Those are pretty strong statements. But refusing to say that and just saying "I don't believe because I don't see the evidence, but I won't say it's impossible," is just attempting to look more reasonable by the standard of the un-reasoning religious people at the expense of actual impartial reasoning.

Even so, if you're the type of person who doesn't believe but isn't still sure, that's okay. I'm not going to try and take away your badge or anything. I'm just saying that if you don't believe, you shouldn't make up a bogus rationale and try to create a false 'over-zealous' wing of Hardline Atheists.

[Caiaphas]

It fails to qualify as science.

One little problem. Last time I checked, atheism was a goddamn belief system, not a science. The point is moot.

A good science pursues naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena.

Good to see that this guy isn't so stupid after all.

As good science, it avoids saying anything about God’s action in the world.

Um, yeah. Except that a scientific theory isn't validated by whether it uses God in an explanation or not (although a scientific theory using God would just be idiotic), it's validated by whether it provides a damn explanation.

For a scientist to conclude that there is no God - which is the conclusion of the atheist - is simply unwarranted by the science.

Is this guy trying to prove that atheist scientists are bad or that atheism is scientific? He really needs to get his damn points straight. By the way, I'm fairly sure that no scientists have actually claimed that God doesn't exist.

Atheism fails to be scientific

Good, cause it ain't supposed to be scientific. It's a belief system.

Please tell me this guy doesn't teach anything.

[salm]

By the way, I'm fairly sure that no scientists have actually claimed that God doesn't exist.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[Serafina]

One little problem. Last time I checked, atheism was a goddamn belief system, not a science. The point is moot.

Yes, it's a belief system the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

In other words, it isn't. Atheism is simply having no belief in the supernatural.
Which is the only rational option, since there is simply absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural. Believing in the supernatural is simply not rational - the same way like believing anything else for which there is no evidence is irrational.

[Patrick Degan]

It fails to qualify as science.

One little problem. Last time I checked, atheism was a goddamn belief system, not a science. The point is moot.

Wrong. Atheism is the default logical position in the face of a complete lack of evidence for the phenomenon in question.

[Caiaphas]

In response to the above objections: whoops.

I hate it when I get carried away.

[Twoyboy]

It fails to qualify as science.

One little problem. Last time I checked, atheism was a goddamn belief system, not a science. The point is moot.

Wrong. Atheism is the default logical position in the face of a complete lack of evidence for the phenomenon in question.

Absolutely. And I think the point is that it's obvious that the scientific method applied to god results in this conclusion. But the blog in the OP is bypassing this point by making the assumption that you can't apply the scientific method to god, that the concept is somehow beyond the reach of science.

I've seen the same argument made by supporters of alternative medicine. And it's a real pet peeve of mine, because it highlights a huge misunderstanding of science in general. If the purpose of science is to measure and explain natural phenomena (put simply), then everything that we can witness/observe/experience can be examined by science. Anything we determine to be outside of the realm of science, we are effectively saying has no influence in the natural world.

Thus, by even making the argument, you are excluding the possibility of an interventionist god, leaving you as either an atheist, or a deist.